A"120 I1 ARMY [NSINE[M "ATERWAYS EXPERIENT STATION VICKSUMIoT G1/

TLAK PONTCATAIN AN VICINITY HiRICANE PROTECTION PLAN. REPO--ETC(U)ft H L BUTLER. ft C EftI(rU L L DAE~kTTICLASSIFp lD WES/TRIh-.- L Lm u u NL

SESS ImONSu

IIIIIIhhIIIhh

Ic

'-.4'

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wh n Dof Ent..d)

PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSREPORT DOCUMENTATION PBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report HL-82-2 , ,/4"/

4. TITLE (ads,bti..I LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY S. TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED

HURRICANE PROTECTION PLAN; Report 2, PHYSICAL ANDNUMERICAL MODEL INVESTIGATION OF CONTROL STRUCTURES Report 2 of a seriesAND THE SEABROOK LOCK; Hydraulic and Mathematical S. PERFORMINGORG. REPORT NUMBER

Model Investigation7. AUTHOR(e) 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMSER(e)

H. Lee Butler T. F. Berninghausen

R. C. BergerLarry L. DaggettS. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKAREA A WORK UNIT NUMBERS

U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment StationHydraulics LaboratoryP. 0. Box 631. Vicksburg. Miss. 391ROII. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U. S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans June 1982P. 0. Box 60267 IS. NUMBER OF PAGES

-L 7111611 1824 MONITORING AGENCY NAME 0 ADDRESS(It dlgItflit Irm ConfrolhInO OtlcS) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of dde empot)

Unclassified

Is*. I iASSMIP ATI ON/ DOWN GRADING

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of roie Jtelp)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (*f Ib* abstract witolroin alock 20, Ii dlfa nt ro. Reperi)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,Springfield, Va. 22151

1S. KEY WORDS (Conthme an m~" *o. It necosom md Idenlip by block number)

Chef Menteur Pass Numerical modelnite differences Physical modelrricane barrier The Rigolets

I r Harbor Navigation Canal Tidal prism

21L TRACT in,1wS 0 , ., N n-00- ,. I00MI S*Y blicS

A comprehensive study to evaluate effects of the Lake Pontchartrain andVicinity Hurricane Protection Plan on the tidal prism and circulation in LakePontchartrain, hurricane surge levels, and water quality is being conducted bythe U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station under sponsorship of theU. S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans. This report, second of a series,presents results pertinent to a detailed investigation of the three majorarteries leading into the lake, namely, The Rigolets, Chef Menteur Pass, and

(Continued)\

w A N 173 ueo OV SSIS OLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIICATION OF ThIS PAGE (Nm Dole nftfo*0

.f.. . -

im

Unclassified

SICURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGO(Ism Di.ate ZRB 4

20. Abstract (Continued).

the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal.

The basic approach to simulating these passes and impact of structural

alterations on the Lake Pontchartrain tidal prism can be outlined as follows:

a. Perform separate experiments with an undistorted hydraulic model ofeach pass with and without the proposed structure installed under steady-stateconditions to quantify the hydraulic characteristics of each barrier. This isaccomplished by measuring head losses across a structure for a range of water

levels on the gulf side of the barrier and various flow rates.

b. Perform similar experiments with sectional numerical models (subgrids

of the computational grid for the full three-lake system). The barrier effectis simulated by locally introducing the proper sill depth and by locally adjust-ing the flow resistance.

c. Perform similar experiments with finer scale sectional models to en-

sure that the computational grid resolution is adequate and that finer scalemodels are capable of describing the flow regime in the neighborhood of theproposed structures.

An extensive field data collection effort was undertaken to provide a database from which known conditions could be used to calibrate and verify all ofthe models to be used in the study. These data are reported in the first reportof this series entitled "Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane ProtectionPlan; Report I, Collection and Analysis of Prototype Data."

A hydraulic sectional model of The Rigolets structure was built and testedin a previous study (Berger and Boland 1976) and results obtained were suffi-cient for the present study.

No significant problems were encountered in performing each phase of thestudy. Good agreement between any model and observed data was obtained. Forthe computational sectional model a single value of Manning's n was determinedor each structure (and for each plan of operation tested for the Seabrook lock/

structure complex) and found to adequately represent structure hydraulic charac-teristics for both flood and ebb conditions and for the entire discharge rangetested. This fact permits easier implementation of a structure in a globalsimulation. Extreme head differences across any structure could not be main-ained in either physical or numerical models, but any realistic conditioncould be modeled.

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASIFICATION OF THIS PAGfS(hOat h- r0

II -V!8

PREFACE

The study described herein was authorized by the U. S. Army Engi-

neer District, New Orleans, under the general direction of Mr. F. Chatry,

Chief, Engineering Division. All elements of the investigation were

conducted at the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES)

during the period August 1978 to September 1981 by personnel in various

divisions of the Hydraulics Laboratory under the direction of Mr. H. B.

Simmons, Chief of the Hydraulics Laboratory, and Dr. R. W. Whalin,

Project Manager and Chief of the Wave Dynamics Division (WPD).

The study was performed by Messrs. H. Lee Butler and T. F.

Berninghausen, WDD, Dr. Larry L. Daggett, Hydraulic Analysis Division,

and Mr. R. C. Berger, Estuaries Division. Numerical computations

associated with this work were performed on the CYBER 176 and CRAY 1

computers located at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland AFB,

New Mexico.

Commanders and Directors of WES during the course of the investi-

gation and the preparation and publication of this report were COL John L.

Cannon., CE, COL Nelson P. Conover, CE, and COL Tilford C. Creel, CE.

Technical Director was Mr. F. R. Brown.4Accession ForNTTS 13 11&IjDTIC TAB

~~Unannounced [

Justification

Distribution/ ....

Availability CodesLvai and/or

DistI[

AL1

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ............. .............................. 1

CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ........ ...................... 3

PART I: INTRODUCTION ........... ....................... 5

Background ............ ......................... 5Approach ............. .......................... 6

PART II: PHYSICAL MODELS OF CONTROL STRUCTURES ..... .......... 9

Purpose and Study Approach ........ ................. 9Previous Investigations ........ .................... 9Description .......... ......................... . .11Appurtenances ....... ........................ 11Accuracy of Model Measurements ..... ............... ... 15Seabrook Lock and Outlet St-ucture: Test Conditions

and Results ......... ........................ ... 18Chef Menteur Pass Barrier Structure: Test Conditionsand Results .......... ........................ ... 28

PART III: COMPUTATIONAL GRID SECTIONAL MODELS, STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS .......... ........................ ... 31

Objective and Approach ......... ................... 31Model Descriptions ........ ..................... ... 33Numerical Model Tests .......... .................... 37Treatment of Navigation Channels ..... .............. . 44

PART IV: FINE SCALE NUMERICAL MODELS ..... ............... ... 48

Objective and Approach ....... ................... ... 48Descriptioa of Numerical Models ... ............... 48Numerical Fine Scale Test Results and Comparisonwith Physical Model Results .... ................ 51

PART V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... ................. .. 102

REFERENCES .............. ........................... 104

TABLES 1-38PHOTOS 1-32PLATES 1-6

2

* . .

ii i l I l I

CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

U. S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted

to metric (SI) units as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain

acres 4046.856 square metres

cubic feet per second 0.02831685 cubic metres per second

feet 0.3048 metres

feet per second 0.3048 metres per second

miles (U. S. statute) 1.609344 kilometres

square feet 0.09290304 square metres

1' __

4-

141"

zr

I.,

fIL 4

-- 9

00

Ix-

hii

LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY HURRICANE PROTECTION PLAN

PHYSICAL AND NUMERICAL MODEL INVESTIGATION OF

CONTROL STRUCTURS AND THE SEABROOK LOCK

Hydraulic and Mathematical Model Investigation

PART I: INTRODUCTION

Background

1. A comprehensive study to evaluate effects of the Lake

Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan on the tidal prism

and circulation in Lake Pontchartrain, hurricane surge levels, and water

quality is being conducted by the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-

ment Station (WES) under sponsorship of the U. S. Army Engineer District,

New Orleans (LMN). Results of this study are to be presented in a

series of reports published under the general title "Lake Pontchartrain

and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan." The major tool employed in

the numerous investigations carried out in the course of this study

is a numerical hydrodynamic model (WES Implicit Flooding Model, WIFM),developed at WES, which is capable of simulating bcth tidal effectsand hurricane surge flooding. This report, which is the second of the

series, presents results pertinent to a detailed investigation of the

three major arteries leading into the lake, namely, The Rigolets, Chef

Menteur Pass, and the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal.

2. One of the alternative protection plans includes a system of

levees surrounding flood-prone areas to the south and east of the lake

and control structures in the three passes to the lake. The key to

successful modeling of the lake hydrodynamics lies in correctly simu-

lating water flow through the passes and the impact of a hydraulic struc-

ture, i.e. a gated hurricane barrier, on that flow. Thus, the objective

of this phase of the study was to calibrate and verify those parts of

the Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity numerical model that represent the

passes. This was accomplished by using a combination of field data,

5

results from undistorted physical models of the proposed barrier struc-

tures, and various numerical models of the lake and passes.

3. Lake Pontchartrain is adjacent to and just north of the city

of New Orleans, Louisiana (Figure 1). The principal connections to

the Gulf of Mexico are The Rigolets and Chef Menteur Passes which are

natural passes, and a man-made connection through the Inner Harbor

Navigation Canal (Seabrook Canal) and Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet

Canal, which is a gulf-level canal. The Rigolets and Chef Menteur

Passes connect Lake Pontchartrain with Lake Borgne. The Mississippi

River-Gulf Outlet Canal eventually exits into the more saline Gulf of

Mexico; consequently, this small canal serves as a major source of

salinity for Lake Pontchartrain. In addition, Lake Maurepas is con-

nected to the west end of Lake Pontchartrain by Pass Manchac. Lakes

Maurepas, Pontchartrain, and Borgne make up the three-lake system to be

modeled.

4. Gated control structures were proposed in The Rigolets and

Chef Menteur Passes in concert with a planned lock and structure at the

lake end of the Seabrook Canal as a part of a hurricane protection plan

for the area. Figure 2 displays an enlargement of the three major

passes being modeled. This plan would serve to protect areas contiguous

to the shore of Lake Pontchartrain from flooding by limiting the uncon-trolled entry of hurricane surges into the lake. During normal tide

conditions the gates of The Rigolets and Chef Menteur control structures

would remain open, allowing the passage of normal flood and ebb tidal

flow. The Seabrook Lock (junction of Lake Pontchartrain and the Inner

Harbor Navigation Canal) wuuld be operated as required by navigation

entering or exiting Lake Pontchartrain via the Inner Harbor Navigation

Canal.

Approach

5. The basic approach to simulating the passes and impact of

structural alterations on the Lake Pontchartrain tidal prism can be

outlined as follows:

6

1.4

0

.0

co~

II'

o

U,

--m -77

a. Perform separate experiments with an undistorted hydraulicmodel of each pass with and without the proposed structureinstalled under steady-state conditions to quantify thehydraulic characteristics of each barrier. This is accom-plished by measuring head losses across a structure for arange of water levels on the gulf side of the barrier and

various flow rates.

b. Perform similar experiments with sectional nwuerical models(subgrids of the computational grid for the full three-lakesystem). The barrier effect is simulated by locally intro-ducing the proper sill depth and by locally adjusting the

flow resistance. Hydrodynamic code WIFM (Butler 1980) wasused for all numerical tests in this study.

c. Perform similar experiments with finer scale sectional

models to ensure that the computational grid resolution isadequate and that finer scale models are capable ofdescribing the flow regime in the neighborhood of theproposed structures.

6. An extensive field data collection effort was undertaken to

provide a data base from which known conditions could be used to cali-

brate and verify all of the models to be potentially used in the study.

The actual subset of data used in the model study is suzmarized in

Report 1 (Outlaw 1982). These data were used in calibrating and

verifying both physical and numerical sectional models. A hydrauli&

sectional model of The Rigolets structure was buiit and tested in a

previous study by Berger and Boland (1976), and these results were

sufficient for the present study. Since thE Chef Menteur Control

Structure is proposed for location in a new canal to be dredged, only

plan condit'ons were tested.

7. Results from this investigation will provide required parame-

ters in the global tidal prism simulations. Model adjustments made in

global calibration runs will not include any variation of these parame-

ters. The finer scale numerical models were constructed to aid in

demonstrating grid insensitivity in modeling passes and to establish

models which could be used in future studies involving detailed analysis

of flow local to each pass.

PART II: PHYSICAL MODELS OF CONTROL STRUCTURES

Purpose and Study Approach

8. In order to quantify the hydraulic characteristics of the

various proposed structures in the hurricane barrier protection plan,

undistorted-scale physical models of the structures and adjacent areas

were required. Undistorted-scala physical models of the Seabrook

(Photo 1) and the Chef Menteur Pass (Photo 2) structures were con-

structed and tested. The model regions were of sufficient length to

reliably produce approach and exit conditions near the structures.

Experimental data acquired from these models consisted of water-surface

elevations for a range of flow rates and surface-current patterns near

the structures. These data provided reliable quantitative information

on the head losses across these structures, and they were then used to

determine the numerical model representation of the control structures.

Previous Investigations

9. Physical modeling of The Rigolets coricrol structure was

conducted in an earlier study (Berger and Boland 1976). This model

(Figure 3) covered 3.2 miles* of The Rigolets Pass beginning at the

Lake Pontchartrain entrance of The Rigolets. A base condition was

modeled with no structure in place. A number of study plans were

modeled with the final selected plan (Plan 2A-l) having only limited

measurements to define improved flow conditions at the Fort Pike area.

This plan was basically the same as Plan 2A (shown in Figure 3) except

that the structure was relocated 250 ft closer to the center of the

channel. Results from this study provided data required for calibration

of the numerical representation of The Rigolets structure.

* A table of factors for converting U. S. customary units of measure-

ment to metric (SI) units is presented on page 3.

_91

aIu0

I

-j

41/ 41-

'4

'1Q/WO3

Description

10. Testing of Seabrook and Chef Menteur Pass stuctures was

performed for steady-state flows in fixed-bed, undistorted-scale models

constructed within a shelter to eliminate wind effects and permit uninter-

rupted operation. The models were constructed of concrete, except for

the structures themselves which were plastic. Linear scale ratios, model

to prototype, were 1:100 horizontally and vertically. Other scale ratios

were as follows: velocity 1:10, discharge 1:100,000, slope 1:1, and

volume 1:1,000,000.

11. The Chef Menteur Pass model reproduced the proposed man-made

channel approaches to the structure, a small portion of the natural pass,

and about 390 acres of Lake Borgne (Figures 4 and 5). This model was

about 120 ft long and 60 ft wide at its widest point. An assumed scoured

bottom condition was used in Lake Borgne at the entrance to the proposed

man-made channel. Such a condition will certainly occur in nature after

construction of the structure and was considered to be much more repre-

sentative of potential future prototype conditions than would an

unscoured channel entrance.

12. The Seabrook model (Figure 6) reproduced about 1.5 miles of

the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal and 340 acres of Lake Pontchartrain.

The model was about 130 ft long and 40 ft wide at its widest point.

Appurtenances

13. Models were equipped with the necessary supply pumps and

valves to allow a wide range of steady-state flow rates and water levels

to be reproduced for flood and ebb directions. One pump and venturi

system were used to supply and measure flow to either model. An addi-

tional pump and venturi system were used for the higher discharges on

the Chef Menteur model.

14. Water-surface elevation measurements were made throughout each

of these models using two types of gages. Four locations on each model

were monitored using electronic water-surface elevation detectors

11

... ,

LAK - -HRMI

/q

Figure 4. Chef Henteur Pass with plan location

.... __......

He NO Al

0'0

I'10 of

4.p >

F- u

0N

o 2.

(f)

0

-N- 0

I I0u -

I z

(Figure 7) which employ a noncontacting capacitance probe. This detec-

tor, in conjunction with a digital readout, can detect changes in water-

surface elevation of 0.0001 ft (0.01 ft prototype). The remainder of

the stations were equipped with point gages. These gages with the

accompanying vernier can be read directly to 0.001 ft (0.1 ft prototype).

15. Current measurements were made with miniature Price-type

meters constructed of a light plastic material. These meters had five

cone-shaped cups which were about 0.04 ft in diameter (4.0 ft prototype),

were mounted so that the total meter diameter was about 0.09 ft (9 ft

prototype), and were capable of measuring model velocities as low as

about 0.03 fps (0.3 fps prototype). A meter and counter are shown in

Figure 8.

Accuracy of Model Measurements

Flow measurement

16. Venturi-type flow meters used to set discharge rates are

primarily subject to two error sources--the first being the sum of

possible errors incurred during the calibration process and the second,

the ability of the operator to set a particular manometer reading pre-

cisely. A maximum cumulative error is approximately 10 percent.

Water-surface measurement

17. The manual gage readings in these models were the average

of two technicians' readings. Errors in measurement develop from two

primary sources--the first being setting the gage reading to a datum

("zeroing" the gage) and the second, the actual reading of the gage

(involves detection of the water surface with the gage point and reading

the vernier for measurement). Errors caused by these sources were

evaluated by series of runs over flow rates for four gage sites through

the Chef Menteur model. An electronic and a manual gage were read at

each site. Readings were made in pits that were connected to the

various locations throughout the model; in this manner, disturbances in

the model were effectively damped. This was the same system as was used

during data collection for calibration of the structures. The electronic

15

A r,-

- I

0

Uw

0JUCO

C4~4

'"4rJ~

'"4wJ-J

CO

U

0'"I4JU

0)

00

16II

4 - - -- ~---- .. '.- - P

41

44

171

pis

LvC

gages were used as an aid in determining the precision of the manual

gages. Results, shown in Figure 9, are for averages of two technicians'

readings comparable to actual calibration data. Electronic gages were

considerably more precise than manual gages. Water-surface measurements

with electronic gages were displayed and subsequently recorded to

0.0001 ft (0.01 ft prototype). Normally, these gages may be confidently

expected to give readings within an accuracy of +0.0002 ft (+0.02 ft

prototype).

Velocity measurement

18. Errors in measurement of model velocities may be due to a

number of sources. The process of meter calibration may induce some

errors due to limitations of the calibration equipment; also, general-

ization of the data by curve-fitting induces additional errors. The

electronic counter monitors the number of light pulses in a certain

length of time using a receptor that is shielded from light sources

by a slit plate mounted on the shaft with the velocity meter cups. The

light source remains on for a fixed length of time--30 sec in this

study. The manner in which the slits are lined up with the light source

and receptor when the timer is started and stopped could cause the count

to be off by as much as two units, which would yield an error of about

0.1 fps (prototype). Turbulence in the model can cause readings to

fluctuate and thereby not give a reliable indication of the mean veloc-

ity at a location. An evaluation of these error sources indicates that

velocity measurements should be considered reliable within +0.3 fps

(prototype).

Seabrook Lock and Outlet Structure:Test Conditions and Results

Conditions

19. Testing of the Seabrook model consisted primarily of obtaining

calibration data for the structure under a variety of operating condi-

tions. The Seabrook structure consists of a navigation lock and an out-

let structure (Figure 10). The outlet structure provides flow access

between Lake Pontchartrain and the Inner Harbor Navigation Channel.

7

18i

1001

w

t

z

Z 6

0 U

U W

W -.II: w-

OF0

W 0-0 0.2I0 .0 .601

0 19

0 0_02 a_4M_____S .1

ERRO IN AGEREADNG, ROTTYPEFEE

Figre . Peciionof anul wtersuracemeaureent

LAKE GA ES

PONrCHA/RMAMI

NAV IGAT ION LOCK

SCALE IN FEET GA TES~ STRUCTURE

Figure 10. Seabrook Lock and structure design

20

7 - *.A~

Tidal flow through the Seabrook Canal is the major source of salinity for

Lake Pontchartrain. The proposed outlet structure contains three gates,

each of which can be opened or closed to provide an appropriate cross-

sectional area to aid in regulating lake salinity. Each gate opening

had a width of 32 ft with 5-ft-wide piers, and the sill elevation was

-15 fL NGVD*. The navigation lock and gates totaled 946 ft in length

and 84 ft in width. The sill elevation in the gate sections was -15 ft

while in the lock chamber the elevation was about 1 ft deeper. A view

of this structure is shown in Figure 11.

20. Operating conditions for the Seabrook structure are referred

to by plan number in this report, and their designations are as follows:

Navigation Lock Outlet Structure

Plan Designation Condition Condition

Base condition (No structures)

Plan 2 Gates closed Two outside gates open

Plan 3 Gates closed All gates open

Plan 4 Gates open All gates open

Plan 5 Gates open All gates closed

21. Base condition and Plans 1-4 were used to generate model data

for the calibration process. Water-surface elevation data were taken

at 13 stations throughout the model (gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 were elec-

tronic; the remainder were manual), as shown in Figure 6, for flow rates

between 5,000 and 30,000 cfs for both flood and ebb directions. The

5,000-cfs rate served as the lower limit due to loss of equipment accu-

racy at lower flows and limitations imposed by scale effects. These

water-surface measurements were made over a range of heights for each

flow used, covering the normal range of these parameters that would

occur in prototype. In the ebb direction, this meant headwater eleva-

tions between -1 and +3, while the range of headwater elevations in

the flood direction was between -1 and +2. These headwater elevations

All elevations (el) cited herein are in feet referred to the National

Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).

1 21

!____

44-

4-4

OW:C

226

were measured at sta 6 or 8 depending on the direction of flow. Water-

surface data were obtained by two technicians, the final result at each

gage being the average of their readings. Manual point gages were read

and recorded to the nearest 0.05 ft (prototype) by interpolating readings

which fell between vernier graduations. Electronic gages were read

directly to 0.01 ft (prototype). The average of the two readings for

each gage was rounded to the nearest 0.01 ft.

22. Velocity measurements were made at each flow rate of the

+1 headwater elevation condition at seven stations for three depths

(surface, middepth, and bottom). Due to the size of the velocity meter

itself, the center line of the meter cups was submerged about 3 ft

(prototype) for a surface reading and 5 ft above the bottom for a bottom

reading.

23. Plan 5 was used to determine velocity magnitudes through the

lock. Velocities were measured at nine stations (sta Bl-B3, A3, plus

five stations in the lock shown in Figure 12) for headwater elevations

of +1 and +3 and flow rates of 5,000 and 10,000 cfs for both ebb and

flood conditions. Water-surface elevations were measured at the same

stations as were taken for the other operating conditions (Plans 1-4).

24. Surface current photographs were made for the base conditions

by using a 3-sec exposure of confetti on the water surface. The length

of each streak minus its width is proportional to the current velocity,

which may then be scaled. Shortly before the end of the exposure period

a strobe was flashed that created a dot near the end of each streak

indicating the direction of flow. Comparison of surface velocity ascer-

tained from these photographs and those at the same location given by

velocity meter readings will not be identical since the velocity meter

results were obtained about 3 ft below the water surface. Also, velocity

values from the photographs result as the confetti is transported, so

the velocity obtained is a spatially averaged value over the streak

length. Base condition photographs were made for flow rates of 15,000

and 30,000 cfs at a headwater elevation of +1 in both ebb and flood

directions. Surface current photographs of Plans 2-4 were taken under

the conditions shown below for both flood and ebb directions:

23

-~ ~ i

0VELOCITY STATIONS

GArES LGN

LAKE

PONTCHARTRAIN

NAVIGATION LOCK I

SCALE IN FEET GATrES STRUCTURE

Figure 12. Additional stations for velocity measurements in theSeabrook Lock

24

Flow Rate Headwater Elevation Exposure TimePlan Designation cfs ft NGVD sec

2 5,000 +1 3 and 9

3 5,000 +1 3 and 910,000 +1 3 and 9

4 5,000 +1 3 and 910,000 +1 3 and 915,000 +1 3 and 9

Results for base tests

25. The primary model data (water-surface elevations and veloci-

ties for a range of discharges) were acquired for the base condition to

aid in calibration of the numerical model. These data were obtained for

all the conditions described previously and are shown in Tables 1-5.

26. Surface current patterns for base conditions, using a 3-sec

time exposure, are shown in Photos 3-6. In the ebb direction, flow

approaches the canal more rapidly along the sides of the lake than in

the center. In the flood direction, the navigation canal discharges

into the lake and a relatively high velocity continues in a direction

traversing the lake. This relatively high-velocity stream was flowing

in a direction deflected westerly from the canal entrance. East of the

stream, a large clockwise gyre was present and many smaller gyres were

noted west of the stream in the lake. The artificial western model

boundary and particulary the headbay in Lake Pontchartrain (for intro-

ducing and extracting flow from the model) could be responsible for some

of the flow patterns exhibited. Therefore, extrapolation of those de-

tails of current flow to prototype is of limited usefulness. Reliability

of such flow characteristics was not required to meet the study

objectives.

Results for Plan 1

27. Data obtained for calibration of the numerical model were

originally planned to cover the range of normal water levels generally

between -1 and +3. For the minimum flow that could be run reliably in

this model (5,000 cfs prototype) a headwater condition of +3 or below

headwater elevation. Water-surface elevations on the tailwater side of

25

the structure were not unique values corresponding to particular head-

water elevations; and for the same flow rate and headwater elevation, a

range of tailwater results could be established. Water-surface eleva-

tions for 5,000 cfs were taken for the minimum obtainable headwater ele-

vation (Table 6).

Results for Plan 2

28. Water-surface elevations were taken over the complete range

of planned headwater elevations, and velocity measurements were made

at the +1 headwater elevation for flows of 5,000, 6,250, and 7,500 cfs

and are shown in Tables 7-11. The minimum obtainable headwater for a

flow of 8,750 cfs was +0.98 in the flood and +0.45 in the ebb direction.

However, for a flow of 10,000 cfs, no velocities were collected as the

minimum headwater was +2.08 flood and +2.20 ebb.

29. Surface current photographs were taken for a discharge of

5,000 cfs in both ebb and flood directions for a headwater elevation of

about +1; results are shown in Photos 7-10. Flood flows into the lake

through the outlet structure curve toward the navigation lock and flow

out into the lake very nearly parallel with the lock. Two large gyres

appear in these photographs. One gyre exhibits a clockwise motion above

the navigation lock extending back to the outlet structures and the other

gyre is counterclockwise below the navigation lock and extends to the

edge of the locks protrusion into the lake. Surface flow patterns in

the ebb direction show a fairly smooth tiow toward the outlet structure.

Most of the flow appears to be diverted toward the outlet structure gate

nearest the lock.

Results for Plan 3

30. A complete set of water-surface elevations and current veloc-

ity data were obtained for flows of 5,000, 7,500, 10,000, and 12,500 cfs.

Also, for a flow rate of 15,000 cfs, water-surface elevations were taken

for two headwater elevations in the flood direction and three in the

ebb direction. The minimum obtainable headwater at this flow rate was

+1.43 in the flood and +1.21 in the ebb direction. These data are

listed in Tables 12-16. Surface current photographs were made for flow

rates of 5,000 and 10,000 cfs for both ebb and flood direction at a

26

headwater elevation of about +1; results are shown in Photos 11-18.

Flow patterns were similar to those of Plan 2. However, at the higher

flow in flood direction, a clockwise gyre was evident below the

navigation lock.

Results for Plan 4

31. Complete sets of calibration data were taken for flow rates

of 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000 cfs. Water-surface elevation

data for three headwater condition- in the flood direction and four

in the ebb were taken at a flow rate of 25,000 cfs. The minimum head-

water elevations obtained for this flow were +0.17 flood and +0.44 ebb.

Velocity data were obtained for the +1 headwater condition for these

flows. Water-surface elevation data were obtained for a flow rate of

30,000 cfs for one headwater condition in the flood direction and two

headwater conditions in the ebb direction. The minimum obtainable head-

water was +1.84 flood and +2.06 ebb. All of these calibration data are

contained in Tables 17-22. Accurate readings of water-surface measure-

ments on the tailwater side of the structure for flow rates of 25,000

and 30,000 cfs were difficult due to oscillations of the water surface

emanating from the navigation lock. These oscillations were probably

due to the unstable flow in the lock which was near critical flow con-

ditions. Surface current photographs were obtained for 5,000, 10,000,

and 15,000 cfs for both directions at a headwater condition of +1.

These results were similar to previous plan results and are shown in

Photos 19-30.

Results for Plan 5

32. Testing of this plan did not involve taking calibration

data since this was not considered a potential operating condition.

Measurement of the velocities in the lock was the actual purpose.

Velocities in the lock, as well as at four stations (Figure 12) in the

navigation channel, were measured for discharges of 5,000 and 10,000 cfs

in both directions. Water-surface elevation data also were obtained

for these conditions. Headwater elevations at which data were obtained

were about +1 and +3 for 5,000 cfs and +3 for 10,000 cfs. These data

are shown in Tables 23 and 24.

27

33. At sta L3, in the center of the lock, the maximum velocities

in the flood direction were 6.2 and 5.1 fps for headwater elevations of

about +1 and +3, respectively. The difference in water levels across the

structure (sta 11 to 2) were 1.36 and 0.90 ft for headwater elevations of

+1 and +3, respectively. In the flood direction for a flow rate of

10,000 cfs and a headwater elevation of about +3, the maximum velocity at

this station was 10.8 fps while the difference in water levels across

the structure was over 7 ft. In the ebb direction, the maximum veloci-

ties at this station for a discharge of 5,000 cfs were 6.7 and 5.1 fps

for headwater elevations of +1 and +3, respectively. The differences in

water levels across the structure were 1.21 and 1.07 ft, respectively.

At a flow rate of 10,000 cfs with a headwater of +3, the maximum velocity

at sta L3 was 9.4 fps and the difference in water levels was 5.28 ft.

The minimum discharge for which reliable model data could be acquired

was 5,000 cfs due to equipment limitations and scale effects. The dis-

charge rate of 10,000 cfs results in velocities and water-surface eleva-

tions beyond what was considered the normal range.

Chef Menteur Pass Barrier Structure:

Test Conditions and Results

Test conditions

34. Water-surface measurements were made at 16 locations

(Figure 13) throughout the model. Sta 2, 3, 6, and 7 were monitored

with electronic water-surface detectors; the remainder of the stations

were equipped with manual point gages. Calibration data were produced

by measuring water-surface elevations throughout the model for five dis-

charges (25,000 to 125,000 cfs in 25,000-cfs increments) in both ebb and

flood directions. Each discharge was run for four different headwater

conditions (-1, 0, +1, and +2 ft) and measured at sta 2 or 7 depending

on the direction of flow.

35. Water-surface data were obtained by two technicians, the final

result at each gage being the average of their readings. Velocity

measurements were made at 23 stations for three depths (surface, mid-

depth, and bottom). These data were taken at three discharges (25,000,

28

I -e v--

fto

40~ a Q

0 .

_j co0 :D z

Ot- fl-LiJI(/) U .

'9J

Lai 0

00

U)J

40b4

EU

75,000, and 125,000 cfs) for one headwater condition at each flow rate

(+I for 25,000 and 75,000 cfs, and +2 for 125,000 cfs) in both ebb and

flood directions. Surface current photographs were made using a 3-sec

exposure of confetti on the water surface for two higher discharge con-

ditions. Testing in this model was conducted with the navigation chan-

nel and the Gulf Intracostal Waterway closed to flow. In this manner,

data were obtained that truly represented head losses due solely to the

proposed control structures. Treatment of the Chef Menteur navigation

channel is discussed in a following section.

Results

36. Data from these model tests, which were used as calibration

data for five flow rates are shown in Tables 25-29. A complete set of

velocity data also is given in Tables 30-32. Velocity and water-surface

elevation data that were taken together under identical conditions con-

tain the same run numbers.

37. Velocity results for sta NI, N5, C, and SI-S5 along the center

line of the channel through the structure are plotted in Plates 1-6.

This information should be of aid in sizing of riprap and definition of

flow patterns.

38. Surface current photographs for flows of 75,000 and 125,000 cfs

are shown in Photos 31 and 32. The flow approaching the structure mean-

ders somewhat along the approach channel. Downstream of the structure,

large eddies extend along the eastern bank for about 1,000 ft for both

flood flows and along the western bank for about 1,800 ft. In the ebb

direction, Lhese large eddies continued for about 1,000 ft along the

western bank for both flow conditions and extend beyond the limits of

these photographs on the eastern side (over 2,000 ft).

30

PART III: COMPUTATIONAL GRID SECTIONAL MODELS,STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS

Objective and Approach

39. The objective of the sectional modeling of the passes is to

ficilitate both accurate and economical modeling of the entire study

area for the hurricane and tidal circulation simulations as well as

to quantify the hydraulic characteristics of the proposed structures.

Since the individual passes are small relative to the dimensions of the

three-lake system (global model), while at the same time having both

high flow rates, large depths, and meandering channel geometry, they

control both the number of cells and the maximum time-step for the

global model. Therefore, the balance between desired resolution and

maintenance of an acceptable cost (indirectly proportional to computer

time availability) for running the global model hinges on selection of

grid dimensions in the vicinity of the three major passes--The Rigolets,

Chef Menteur Pass, and Seabrook Canal.

40. Computational grid sectional models for both steady-state and

dynami conditions are the resultionalemodes to define a global grid for

the three-lake system that will provide an acceptable degree of reso-

lution and accuracy at minimum cost. Since the cost of running a model

is proportional to the number of cells and the time-step, cost optimiza-

tion requires that the passes models must be chosen in a fashion such

that the hydrodynamics are correctly represented with a minimum number

of grid cells. In order to determine that this criterion has been met,

computations using several grids of each pass were compared with one

another in a sensitivity study. It was found that both Chef Menteur Pass

and Seabrook Canal could be modeled (with and without structure in place)

by a one-dimensional system. Due to its overall size, The Rigolets was

modeled in two dimensions.

41. Having determined which grids provided the required accuracy

at minimum cost, a variable-spaced global grid (Figure 14) was devised

such that sections covering the three major passes approximated the indi-

vidual optimum grids (mapping of the global grid would not allow for

31

-J

JJJ

tf

-41

exact duplication of the individual grids). Grid coordinates were

aligned with the earth coordinate system. After constructing the global

grid, portions covering the major passes were, in turn, extracted to form

individual models of each pass. The sensitivity study ensured that pass

models extracted from the global grid could represent the appropriate

hydrodynamics; therefore these models were calibrated and verified to

duplicate the physical model results (steady-state flows).

Model Descriptions

42. The steady-state model of The Rigolets Pass employs a grid

(Figure 15) of 594 cells (27 by 22), with the smallest cell having a

vertical (north/south) extent of about 500 ft and a horizontal (east/

west) extent of about 700 ft. The numerical grid covers the same area

as its physical model counterpart. The main channel has been given a

full two-dimensional representation with a minimum amount of idealization.

Sawmill Pass was treated as a channel of single cell width. The sand-

bar in midchannel, just west of the proposed structure site was repre-

sented by a submerged barrier. The grid was digitized so as to preserve

the channel cross section as determined from available topographic data.

The navigation channel north of the closure dam (Figure 3) is not modeled.

A full description of the channel treatment follows at the end of this

part.

43. The steady-state model of the Seabrook Canal uses a grid

(Figure 16) of 304 cells (16 by 19), with the smallest cell having a

vertical (north/south) extent of 800 ft and a horizontal (east/west)

extent of 350 ft. The grid covers approximately the same area as its

physical model counterpart. The channel is represented by a single

column of cells. Although the actual Seabrook Canal runs 15 deg west

of north and the numerical grid is aligned with north, the channel

idealization has been shown to have no significant effect on computed

results. The idealized channel model has been digitized so that both

channel length and cross section have been preserved.

44. Chef Menteur Pass was modeled similar to the Seabrook Canal in

33I

00-

48

A____

0as "AA

-L, ICA

N j yr.

_ I I x _ x _ '4IV_ 1 -

Jill

1 11h 11 10

-4 _4

Ia

0)

4

0

U

that a single column of cells was used to represent the pass itself. The

steady-state model employed a grid (Figure 17) of 204 cells (12 by 17),

with the smallest cell having a vertical (north/south) extent of 800 ft

and a horizontal (east/west) extent of 670 ft. The grid covers approxi-

mately the same area as its physical model counterpart. Since the phys-

ical model only covers the portion of the proposed channel that will be

newly dredged, no prototype data exist for base conditions. The width

of the channel was chosen to correspond to the width called for by plans

for the proposed structure. The grid was digitized so that average

cross sections of the channel were preserved. Since the navigation

channel in the proposed plan was closed in the physical model tests its

effect must be neglected in the numerical tests. The impact of closing

the channel is discussed in a later section.

Numerical Model Tests

General procedure

45. The objective of the steady-state tests of the sectional pass

models was to determine an appropriate numerical representation of the

proposed structure for each pass. To simulate the cross-sectional

restriction imposed by such structures, WIFM uses a submerged barrier

of given sill depth and frictional characteristics. By varying these

two parameters, the numerical model can be calibrated to reproduce the

same head loss (as a function of volume transport) as that measured in

the undistorted physical model of each pass/structure system.

46. Manning's equation

Q = 1.5 AR2/3 S1/2 (1)n

where

Q = discharge

A = cross-sectional area of the channel model

R = mean hydraulic radius

S = energy slope

37

can be used to predict a value for Manning's n for a given constriction.

The energy slope is approximated by the slope of the water surface,

namely, h*/Ax , where h* is the average head loss over a grid dis-

tance Ax .

47. The same procedures were used in testing all three of the

sectional pass models. Initially, the model was calibrated (if sill

depth and frictional characteristics were determined) to represent base

or existing conditions (without structure in place). Having reproduced

base conditions for each pass (with the exception of Chef Menteur since

only the proposed channel/structure system was tested in an undistorted

physical model), the appropriate structure/levee system was added to

the model and tested. The tests performed were basically an iterative

process in which the goal was to determine an appropriate frictional

coefficient for the barrier that would allow the numerical model to

reproduce the head loss experienced in the physical model for a range

of water levels and flow rates.

The Rigolets modei

48. Base conditions were modeled in a previous study (Berger and

Boland 1976). Since the physical model was operated only in a steady-

state mode and did not simulate flow throughout the tidal cycle, proto-

type data at various instances in time were used to verify the model.

All data taken in the physical model were not reported but are avail-

able from the project files stored at WES. The numerical sectional model

was operated for three conditions representing assumed maximum, medium,

and minimum flow conditions for both flood and ebb events. These con-

ditions are delineated below:

Discharge, cfsFlood Ebb Headwater

Flow Lake Sawmill Lake Sawmill ElevationCondition Pontchartrain Pass Pontchartrain Pass ft

Maximum 216,000 19,000 223,000 17,000 2.0

Medium 143,000 11,000 143,000 14,000 1.0

Minimum 69,000 4,000 75,000 12,000 1.0

38

'-.- J

49. The numerical sectional model was calibrated to reproduce the

maximum flood condition. A uniform Manning's n of 0.025 was used

throughout the channel. Boundary conditions (as specified above) were

taken directly from the physical model data, namely, the eastern bound-

ary (in The Rigolets) was held at a constant head; and discharge condi-

tions were maintained at the western boundary in Lake Pontchartrain and

at Sawmill Pass. Figure 18 displays surface elevation results from both

physical and numerical models (maximum base flood conditions) for com-

parative analysis. Without changing any parameters describing the model,

base conditions for all other flow conditions were reproduced. Figure 19

displays comparative surface elevation results for peak ebb base condi-

tions. Complete results are given in Tables 33 and 34.

50. A number of structure/levee systems were tested in the physical

model with the final selected plan (Plan 2A-1) having only limited

measurements to define improved flow conditions in the Fort Pike area.

This plan was basically the same as Plan 2A except that the structure

was relocated 250 ft closer to the center of the channel. Since the

computational sectional model does not try to accurately reproduce the

geometry of the area local to the structure (the grid is too coarse)

and complete measurements were taken for Plan 2A in the physical model,

these measurements will be used to calibrate the numerical structure

model. Either plan (Figure 3) was represented by a series of exposed

barriers (levees) extending from the north and south shores of The

Rigolets to the middle of the channel. A submerged barrier approximating

the cross-sectional opening of the structure connects to the ends of

the exposed barriers. The frictional coefficient only for the sub-

merged barrier was varied, and the model was adjusted to reproduce heads

and flow conditions observed in the physical model study. An iterative

process was used to determine an average value of Manning's n that

would describe the hydraulic characteristics of the structure in the

sectional model for a complete range of flow conditions. Table 35 dis-

plays results for maximum, medium, and minimum discharge conditions (both

flood and ebb). All results were obtained using a value of n = 0.110

for the structure opening.

39

...A _ _ _ __"_ _ _ _ __-_ ., - .. ... ;2 L- n "\ 2 T .2 _ _ _ ._ _ .....

kVQGV3H

0 0

a,4. C~f

>0

a) E

4CA

WV3V

- --- - - - - - - - - -

40

AVSOV3H

124

to0

2CU)

-'-

~I-x 0

C.)0

i~ .,- -

.oJ01

41A

Seabrook Canal model

51. Base conditions tested in the physical model included five

flow rates between 5,000 and 30,000 cfs for both flood and ebb directions

and for various headwater elevations. Boundary conditions were taken

directly from the physical model; namely, the channel boundary cell was

held at a constant head (gage 13 in the physical model) and the appro-

priate discharge was applied at the Lake Pontchartrain open boundary.

52. Since the Seabrook Canal sectional model idealizes the canal

by representing it as a one-dimensional channel, special attention was

given to the constriction in the channel by the Hayne Boulevard Bridge

just south of the canal's connection to Lake Pontchartrain. The fric-

tional coefficient used in the channel and the coefficient for the sub-

merged barrier representing the bridge constriction were varied, and the

model was adjusted through an iterative process to reproduce heads and

flow conditions observed in the physical model study for the 15,000-cfs

discharge (run 2). If the following parameters, determined from the

geometry represented in the numerical model and from physical model

results, are used in Equation 1,

Parameter Value

A 11,470 ft (353 x 32.5)

R 27.4 ft (11,470/418)

h* 0.3 ft

Ax 956 ft

Q 15,000 cfs

the resulting value of n is

n 1.5 x 11,470 x 27.42/3 x (0.3/956 1 /

15,000 3= 0.185 :

53. Final values of Manning's n determined in the calibration

of the 15,000-cfs discharge were 0.018 for the channel and 0.19 for the

bridge constriction. All headwater settings with Q = 15,000 cfs for

42

LI '

,A , .

both flood and ebb were simulated using these values for n . The

various discharge conditions for Lun 2 in the physical model were subse-

quently computed. All results are presented in Tables 1-5 and indicate

that the selected values for n were adequate for the model to repre-

sent the entire range of flow and head conditions.

54. The five plans tested in the physical model investigation

(PART II) include various possible combinations of open/closed condi-

tions for the lock and three structure gates. Of these alternatives,

plan 4 permits the greatest discharge into Lake Pontchartrain and was

thus chosen to simulate in future tests with the global three-lake model.

For this report only, Plans 3 and 4 were tested in the numerical sec-

tional model. Supercritical flow is too easily generated through the

structure constriction for other plans, aud thus the plans would be dif-

ficult to model with the methodology used herein.

55. Manning's Equation 1 was again employed to predict approximate

values of n to represent the structure operation defined in Plans 3 and

4; these values were 0.39 and 0.24, respectively. For the structure

simulations, the model produced steady-state conditions in substantially

fewer computational steps if the surface elevation were defined at the

Lake Pontchartrain open boundary and if discharge were used for the open-

channel boundary cell. These boundary conditions were used for all test-

ing of Plans 3 and 4. A value of n = 0.4 was determined by an itera-

tive process to best-represent the structure in Plan 3 for a flood dis-

charge of 10,000 cfs; the same value appeared anpropriate for an ebb

discharge as well. Results are given in Table 14. No further tests

with Plan 3 were made since only Plan 4 would be used in the global model.

A similar procedure was used to determine a value of n = 0.23 to best

represent a flood/ebb discharge condition of 15,000 cfs for the structure

operation in Plan 4. Additional discharge conditions were then tested

using this value for n and results are given in Table 17-20.

Chef Menteur Pass model

56. Since only the proposed channel/structure system was tested in

the physical model, no base conditions need be simulated in the numerical

sectional model. Again, a submerged barrier was used to represent the

43

'V ! [

, .. ,:.,L"

structure. The channel width in the numerical model corresponds with the

prototype width of the proposed structure. Manning's Equation 1 predicts

a value of n = 0.105 for the barrier. Flood/ebb conditions were simu-

lated for a discharge of 75,000 cfs; and by an iterative process, a value

of n = 0.112 was found to best represent these conditions in the sec-

tional model. This value of n was then used to simulate additional

discharge conditions and was found to adequately represent the proposed

Chef Menteur structure for the entire range of discharge conditions.

Results are given in Tables 25-29.

Treatment of Navigation Channels

57. The proposed hurricane protection plans for The Rigolets and

Chef Menteur Passes include shallow, narrow navigation channels connec-

ting Lake Pontchartrain with Lake Borgne. It is infeasible to attempt

to model these channels tn the tidal prism computational grid by reducing

the mesh size to the channel width (approximately 100 ft). The Rigolets

navigation channel was included in the physical model but was closed

during most plan tests. The control structure is modeled by determining

a Manning's n to represent tbe head loss across the structure. The

head loss measured in the physical model did not include the navigation

channel effect, so it follows that the frictional coefficient calibrated

for the structure in the numerical model does not include the channel

effect.

58. The navigation channel associated with the Chef Menteur struc-

ture plan was represented in the physical model. Initial tests indi-

cated that the resistance exhibited by the channel was significantly

exaggerated due to scale effects in such a shallow channel. Calibration

of the structure could not be accomplished without closing the navigation

channel. Since tests were subsequently run with the channel closed, the

Chef Menteur navigation channel effect cannot be simulated in the tidal

prism numerical models. The impact of omitting these channel effects

is discussed in the following paragraphs.

59. Keulegan (1967) developed a method of estimating water-level

44

fluctuations of basins in communication with seas. The method has a

number of limitations but it can be used to estimate the effect of ne-

glecting the influence of the navigation channel. The method centers

on calculating a coefficient of filling or repletion for the channel in

question. For the unrestricted Chef Menteur Pass the quantity

= A(2)

a

where

AB = surface area of the basin

a = cross-sectional area of the connecting channel

H = semirange of tide in the sea

K = coefficient of repletion tabulated by Keulegan asa function of channel length (L), tidal period (T),and channel friction coefficient (n).

The maximum mean velocity expected in the channel is given by

V = 2wC _ 1! sin (3)m a T

where C and sin T are quantities depending on K . For K <0.3 a

constant value of C = 0.81 can be adopted. The quantity sin T varies

linearly with K for small K . Nominal values were taken for the

following variables:

a = 30,000 ft2

H = 0.8 ft

T = 89,400 sec

C = 0.81

n = 0.025

sin T = 1.16 K

Equations 2 and 3 were solved iteratively for K and an active AB

assuming a value for V from measured data. The actual surface aream i1

of Lake Pontchartrain is approximately 1.8 x 1010 ft2 . Since the

45

,- " ._ -' -. - ....-_ J .r_' . .

change of water level in the lake is not uniform (uniformity being a

method assumption), the active surface area is expected to be less than

the actual surface area. These calculations resulted in a repletion

coefficient for the existing Chef Menteur Pass of KE = 0.26 and an10 2active lake surface area of 0.8 x 10 ft . Equation 2 can be eval-

uated for the navigation channel to give a repletion coefficient of

KNC = 0.008 .

60. Keulegan gives a formula for a repletion coefficient associated

with a barrier cut, namely,

K 2HTa Cs 21H AB d

where Cd is a discharge coefficient for the structure. Chow (1959)

relates Cd with percent of channel constriction. For the Chef Menteur

structure Cd is in the range 0.8 < Cd < 0.9 . A value of Cd = 0.85

was assumed, giving a value for K of 0.22 .61. If there is more than one connecting channel, the equivalent

repletion coefficient is the sum of the individual channel coefficients.

Thus, if the navigation channel is included with the Chef Menteur

structure, the total repletion coefficient is KT = 0.228 . For small

K the tidal prism or maximum rate of discharge through the connecting

channel is directly proportional to K The reault of omitting the

navigation channel is a 3.5% error in K (0.008/0.228) and consequently

a 3.5% decrease in the discharge rate through Chef Menteur Pass. Simi-

larly, the impacts of placing the proposed structure in Chef Menteur

Pass and of the structure with the navigation channel are 15.4% and 12.3%

changes in K (or maximum Chef Menteur discharge rate), respectively.

62. To assess the impact of omitting the navigation channel on the

tidal prism of the lake the following assumption is made, namely, the

contribution to the tidal prism of any connecting channel between the

lake and the gulf is proportional to the ratio of its controlling cross-

sectional area to the total controlling cross-sectional area of all

connecting channels with structures in place. If the total cross-sec-

tional area of the proposed hurricane protection structure with navigation

46

channels is 53,100 ft2 the following table describes the impact analysis:

Chef Menteur Pass Model

Structure Structure + Channel

Cross-sectional area a (ft ) 16,200 17,500

% 'TOTA L 31.3 33.0

% Impact on discharge rate -15.4 -12.3

% Impact on lake tidal prism -4.8 -4.1

The above analysis indicates that omitting the navigation channel may

have resulted in an additional 0.7% decrease in the lake tidal prism.

This an alysis cannot account for all the nonlinear effects involved,

particularly the interaction between the Chef Menteur and Rigolets Passes,

and the geometric variations in Chef Menteur itself. Nevertheless, sub-

sequent modeling results discussed in Report 3 (Butler, in preparation)

correlate with the assumptions and analysis presented here.

63. The analysis procedure applied to assess the impact of the

Chef Menteur navigation channel cannot be applied with the same confidenceto The Rigolets channel because of irregularity of its cross section with

length. Nevertheless, since the navigation channel associated with The

Rigolets structure plan is similar to that in the Chef Menteur plan (in

width, depth, and length), the impact of neglecting The Rigolets naviga-

tion channel in the tidal prism model computations will be approximately

the same as for the Chef Menteur navigation channel (0.7% decrease in

the lake tidal prism). The actual impact of neglecting The Rigolets

navigation channel will probably be less than that for Chef Menteur.

Reasoning for this premise follows from expecting a larger K for The

Rigolets Pass and hence a smaller error when comparing the omission of

KC = 0.008 . Thus, the total impact of adding the navigation channels

into both The Rigolets and Chef Menteur plans will result in an increase

in the lake tidal prism of about 2%.

47

PART IV: FINE SCALE NUMERICAL MODELS

Objective and Approach

64. In order to demonstrate that the numerical models of the

passes and the control structures to be analyzed in this study can

accurately represent the effects of the passes and structures on the

flow characteristics of the lake system, fine grid models of each pass

were developed and calibrated to the results of the undistorted physical

models. This allowed a relatively accurate representation of the geo-

metric characteristics of the study areas and thus tested the ability of

the numerical model to reproduce the important flow characteristics with

these channel descriptions. In addition, the fine scale model would

allow the analysis of detailed flow patterns for particular conditionsat a later date if such analysis was considered useful. In such casesthe computational grid models could be used to generate the required

boundary conditions for the fine scale model. These fine grid model

tests involved steady-state conditions only and used the linear version

of the computation scheme, except for one set of tests on The Rigolets.

The linear version was used since the cost of running the model with the

advective terms in the computations was relatively high, and it was

demonstrated by these tests that the linear version was adequate for the

purposes of this study. For a more accurate representation of the two-

dimensional flow characteristics, as might be required for a near-field

structural effect study, the nonlinear solution scheme would be required.

Description of Numerical Models

65. The Rigolets model area was represented with a variable-spaced

computational grid in both directions with the grid spacing increasing

from a minimum of 85 and 312 ft in the east/west and north/south direc-

tions, respectively. Figure 20 shows that the finer mesh was concen-

trated in the narrow throat of The Rigolets and at Sawmill Pass in order

to properly represent the prototype geometry. A total grid of 1,520 cells

48

...... .

I I fr--1--:--

iiiij, -

C14

'-4

-7w I L

I -~ j _49

(40 by 38) was used. Bottom elevations were digitized from model con-

struction maps. The control structures were represented as submerged

barriers and the levees as exposed barriers along grid cell faces closely

approximating the actual location of the levees and structures. Bottom

elevations also were adjusted to plan conditicns. Since grid spacing

did not exactly match the clear opening of the gates, the bottom eleva-

tion of the submerged barrier was adjusted slightly for each plan such

that total area of the clear opening would be simulated exactly. This

resulted in an elevation adjustment of +1.51 ft for Plan 2A and +3.14 ft

for Plan 2A-1 from the -30.0 ft design elevation. Losses due to flow

passing through the structure are represented by increasing the fric-

tional coefficient. Manning's n values of 0.120 were used for this

purpose. Some smoothing of the flow across the structures was accom-

plished by increasing Manning's n values of the computation cells

adjacent to the structures to 0.080. The navigation channel was not

modeled corresponding to reasons given in the previous section.

66. The Seabrook model layout is shown in Figure 6. This is rep-

resented numerically by a variably spaced grid containing 1,885 cells with

dimensions of 65 by 29. The cell spacing varies from 35 to 500 ft with

the fine grid spacing concentrated at the bridge and guide wall area near

the Lake Pontchartrain entrance and the lock and outlet structure area.

Flow conditions were run for both a base condition with no structure and

for a plan condition with a lock and gated control structure in place and

fully open (Plan 4 in the physical model testing program). Guide walls

and bridge piers were represented by submerged weirs to enable the addi-

tional friction due to closely spaced pilings to be included. The lock

structure and tie levees are represented by exposed barriers and the

gated control structure is represented by a submerged barrier. Two cell

widths are used to represent the lock. Three cell widths are used to

represent three gated areas. The control structure is oriented at an

angle to the lock in the actual plan; however, in the numerical model,

it must be oriented normal to the lock. Therefore, the flow orientation

will be slightly affected. Bottom elevations for the base condition and

the plan condition were obtained from model construction templates.

50

o'. The Chef Menteur physical model iayuut is presented in

Figure 13. This model was represented numerically with a variably spaced

grid ranging from 65 to 500 ft. The resulting grid contains 1,763 cells

with dimensions of 43 by 41. The finely spaced grid was concentrated in

the channel particularly in the area of the structure. Barrier leveeswere represented as exposed barriers, and the control structure is rep-

resented as a submerged barrier. To keep the cross-sectional area of the

structure equal to the clear opening of the design structure, the bottom

elevation was adjusted to a -26.5 elevation. The small navigation chan-

nel is represented as a narrow channel parallel to the main channel since

it was not feasible to represent this channel in its natural orientation.

The interconnecting channels with the Intracoastal Waterway were blocked

so that no flow will occur in the navigation channel corresponding to the

conditions run in the physical model. Much of the remaining area is low

marshland and can be flooded during some of the headwater conditions.

Bottom elevations were obtained from physical model construction templates.

Numerical Fine Scale Test Results and Comparisonwith Physical Model Results

The Rigolets model

68. The fine scale numerical model results for The Rigolets were

compared for both base and plan conditions with physical model results

for the same flow conditiors tested with the computational grid sectional

model. The best comparison of results for the base condition was ob-

tained with a uniform value of Manning's n of 0.035. Results of eleva-

tion and velocity computations for maximum flood and ebb flows are dis-

played in Figures 21-24 along with physical model data for comparative

analysis. Complete water-surface elevation and velocity data are given

in Tables 33 and 34 for all flows tested. Circulation patterns for the

maximum flood and ebb flows are shown in Figures 25-28. Closeups of

the structure area are included.

69. Since complete measurements of water-surface elevations and

velocities were only taken for Plan 2A in the physical model, both

51

>1

9 ,4

0 U

x0

/ > 1

~1> 0

k C11

52

U 0 9,'~

0 to LU c

ul > LLL'',_

I-, 044

N' 0

~00

cc(nU 41

w -4

>1 0

EA 08 0

I1 1-4 0.

0 -U0-H4-4

4.cce .>

Z4X/CA

/5

AVUC 3w

(00 I

> IL L-

/4?1

>0

Q) ~-'

/ ;i

41

40 A

Im

% %l bVbVll

*0 3 l

1. lb w I l

a 41111JOIlX

* CU

V4

C% % t ftt %

56

\0'L

0

'. -4a.44

0

4;E

-4

00

oc

V/I//I/I 1 4 0Ito,/I l

/1V00 a////' J

4*40

&-oo 4-0, 4-40

57

101

7.7.,

o-o

0)

-4

tilT??- 0. . 1

: . o t e l I p ' P , ,

%- %4

58)

0E

0

r T11I T ~ t L0 41'

1~ TTT t t 1 I tHlb.

u (1)

Q) -4

w

'14caw

A,?A

; A A /,A/L,

59

Plans 2A and 2A-1 are compared with these measurements. This is reason-

able since the slight shifting of the structure should only have local

effects. Results of water-surface elevation and velocity computations

for maximum flood and ebb flows are depicted in Figures 29-36 along

with physical model measurements. Complete water-surface elevation and

velocity data age given in Tables 36-38. Circulation patterns for the

maximum flood and ebb flows are shown in Figures 37-44.

70. It should be noted that the velocities and water-surface

elevations downstream from the structure in Plans 2A and 2A-l are not

in good agreement, particularly for flood flows. This is primarily due

to the fact that the nonlinear advective terms were not used; conse-

quently, the viscous shear flows were not simulated. As a result, the

flow in the numerical model spread out behind the structure, whereas the

physical model flow remained in a concentrated stream with large circu-

lating eddies forming on either side of the structure. For the purposes

of this effort (i.e., ensuring a proper numerical representation of the

head losses and volume transport across the control structures), the

nonlinear advective terms are not important.

71. In order to test the effects of the nonlinear advective terms

on velocities and water-surface elevations and to demonstrate that a

much better comparison of numerical model and physical model circulation

patterns near the control structure can be obtained with the more com-

plete set of equations, a demonstration model was run using the fully ad-

vective solution scheme. As shown in Tables 36 and 37 and Figures 45-48,

use of this solution scheme resulL6 in flows that are very similar to

Lhose observed in the physical model. However, since this numerical

model is much more expensive to run and the overall results of the linear

version of the model are adequate for the purposes of this study, no

further runs were made using the nonlinear advective terms. If detailed

analyses flow patterns in the vicinity of the structures are desired,

these models with the nonlinear advective terms included could be used

for that purpose.

Seabrook Canal model

72. The Seabrook Lock and control structure were modeled for base

60

- - --

AVOW*

FlaONN.1 1

S.,'..U)

o~-2 0)

Ila

0 . 1 g. -

z0

00

,.-1

0)

(I c)0wU

K__________a__s- I I

-~z a - -

P0w a t

(00

II >- _j - t C -C

x : z

0

0a'

0 Q__________ 44E

of,-j

I-N

4j~

00

630

r kw )a

Nc

OHO

04 IJ

ul

CP

/ (64

1]1-4

II

a C6

4w, , t. .4

N ~ 0-- ' z ------ Q - -

0 00

4'++ , +-+ ,,..,*4

/ '-.4

-4-

+ ~ ~ ~ ~ : -,.. +I++ -4

0 0

KmmI

65'7 >

-- 4.)Q

ozK

65

0 ILn

w~ V

0q 0.

(.1 9)

a -4 -1

66 **-~. AcaI

- -~-----~---------~ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

I I

,00

CI

1

0 Q4. 0~ I-414 01

*C2 ~ ~>

- C

-I I- I.4

67

z

Ij

LJ wzzS '

U. x

I -I

cc1 4U) 0

9 79.49.

49-4,.Jv .

Cb 0

00OV~ -- ---

to8

0

-4

I ~ ~A '~4-4* x

co

a L~LLI L co~ L~~LI ILP

4j

a..4-j

4

69

0

00

t4

0

IV 41

$4

0

00

7

* 70

----------

I A LL

'I;1

~' ~VK~\~\ \t\\ ' 0

0

1~'' 0.

'J:3.4.~ -.40

0 L~-~

1' T' \ 1 1 1 1

Co

4 , 4

I J f '~ "~

4~a44 £ .~ r I- t~ - - Ilt~ I I I j

II~I ICOCO

4

'5 #5 - ~r T* T I4. '~ 4 (00)

#5 / / 1 - '-.4-4

* e 1' T ~' / I U

OE-'

-a ~ -~ 'i/f- / 7 'S

~' -~ J.JI..

A .~ / / -

A A .- ~ -- '-9 ~ -~v-~ A' ~- ~h -~ - -

A ~ A ~

A A 4-,

40

01

72

~-~-

-- ~; ,~I

1+4

L I I~ m

'r ~ ~ .b 4, 0 4, al

OF 0 VWO \ CD

~ ~ 'to

. . .. . . . . .

% %

a% %

1*1%~ N a -

, vv% J CA~ ~ %i

% %4

73.

4jra

0.0

a0.

w 4 4

0l0

&0

CN0

in r

JJ -

Voli Ir $4 0

- V. .a

/ 00 M.- O ell 41 --

.4-

74.

.~ ~ NN N wl

~ N ca-

I t t

r It I

'44

r-.

I. - ccC

75

0

0)

I0 w

T 1 T Tcc

- - -l i i i I I I I 4.J C'

- ' I I 4

~ 4 4 i

76 I-

0' 8

got-

-4 CN-

0 -4

~Z -J!! 4'

7VNV~

- IS

0 En

4-1 Ell

- - - -- - -

E -J

Q.

/Q sr 0 w

U 4

00

-w -- - -

I,~-

Q

- -

78

c -0

4J-4

op ~ *b il Ib

Jill' 4- -H

S4446 S S cm

Ic

4.

*4~e79

I (nai. r=.J

44j ., I

a 0.

0 /z

'N , -. .4 r=

80r

_ __.i

conditions, and results were compared with physical model measurements

for flows shown below:

Flow Discharge, cfs Headwater Elevation

Condition Base Plan ft NGVD

Maximum 30,000 25,000 1.0

Medium 15,000 15,000 1.0

Minimum 5,000 5,000 1.0

In the calibration of the model for base conditions, the best compar-

isons were obtained for a uniform Manning's a of 0.025 except in the

area of the constriction, guide wall pilings, and bridge piers. A

high roughness was used in this area. The flow was forced into the

center channel between the guide wall pilings and this roughness. It

was further found necessary to use a different roughness factor for the

flow in the ebb direction than in the flood direction to compensate for

additional losses due to flow constriction. Manning's n values of

0.120 and 0.140 were used for the main channel area between the guide

wall pilings for flood and ebb flows, respectively.

73. Results for base conditions are compared with physical model

measurements in Figures 49-52 for maximum ebb and flood flows. Complete

velocity and water-surface elevation data for the flow conditions tested

are listed in Tables 1, 3, and 5. Circulation patterns for maximum flow

conditions are presented in Figures 53-55. Figure 53 cannot be inter-

preted due to point density but is included to give the reader an over-

view of model extent and resolution. Additional circulation patterns

for Seabrook Canal simulations only depict an enlargement of the pro-

posed lock/structure location.

74. Comparison of numerical and physical model results is good.

It can be readily observed that flow conditions are approaching limita-

tions of the instrumentation for low flows.

75. In attempting to model maximum flow conditions through thelock and control structures as modeled by the physical model, it became

obvious that WIFM could not represent the critical flows that were

occurring in the physical model as the program was structured. Dynamic

81

- .-

II

-4'4

0

-I !\ \c--

"4.

cn

\ o.o:

-N- .

.,,. "0 .,-400

0 0

z -

S c

I -U)

1 4 A~U

m

L.J

I0I-.---,

C .- 4 U)

- 0 -

-4 U

.4-4 a)-

Uv)0.,4

.- 0

.4-4 t

4' A

0E

u

~.cc

0A .- 4

rr u

.0 0w u

0040.-..

VeV

z t

z -

' 1

00

4-(

cj

*0

111

'4-1-0

- 4-4

LL))4

VAL-I

F ' 4-41 0

0

c;

00r-

Q

4-4

o

~0

-H

8.6

• , , , lma uaw.,

.M wh 0 lllll lt '

gj ! 1 Ji l ~i ..... . .

-4

i I I ii II t11111I t . . . .IC

I.li.i

l* % 0

0

a)

0

1-4

4 04

I, :3

s-1lU)

V-wQ) 4-4

m u

1-~ 1: I- " 0

w 00

J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c J uJJ1lblll b l b *-

_ II L II\ I\I\II

I--

Q)

II' 4J

co

Q

00.00L C4-1 fn

0~ 0coo

,,4 H-4

T T 4

to

r 7 ?ltrrTl lI 1I t , .,,.

test runs of the larger scale numerical model of the Seabrook Lock and

control structure demonstrated that the maximum flows through the

structures that would be generated by tidal forces would be on the

order of 10,000 cfs. Therefore, this was the maximum flow used in the

fine grid model. Since all previous testing had demonstrated that the

numerical model reproduced physical model results for the lower flow

rates when the model was properly adjusted for modeling maximum flow

rate, only the maximum flows were tested.

76. Results for the proposed lock and control structure are com-

pared with the physical model water-surface elevations in Figures 56 and

57 for flood and ebb flows of 10,000 cfs. Complete water-surface eleva-

tion and velocity data are given in Table 18. Water-surface elevations

are reproduced reasonably well. It can be observed that velocities on

the Lake Pontchartrain side of the control structure for flood flows

are not reproduced well since the flow does not remain concentrated in

a jet-type flow but expands into the area around the structure as shown

in Figure 58 showing the circulation pattern. This is the same situa-

tion observed in The Rigolets structure case. It could be expected that

flow conditions around the structure could be more accurately reproduced

by using the equations with the nonlinear advective terms included.

However, for the purpose of this project, the simpler linear model

adequately represents the head loss characteristics of the structures.

77. The velocity computed at gage AB is also low compared with

that measured in the physical model. This is due to the contraction

that takes place in the flow as it passes through the pilings in the

bridge area. Again, since the main purpose of the physical model is to

demonstrate the capability of the numerical model to reproduce the head

loss and volume transport generated by the structure, this was not con-

sidered significant.

Chef Menteur Pass model

78. The Chef Menteur Pass was modeled for the maximum flow con-

dition tested in the physical model, 125,000 cfs. It had been well

demonstrated in testing the other structures that reproduction of con-

ditions under maximum flows ensured reproduction of conditions for

89

Oy3

-4

-7-4

A-s%-J \4-4 C

a~ o o

44000

-4

44-1

z4-1

04 a-s to

00 a-4\

*Alt

-j-

001~

I---

'0

\ ~ \\ -4CD.

cr 4. Ico

\0 0C) 0

74. En

0'a

0

EIl

It .0 n

-N- Jm

0

0

J

0

It.

0)-

-

08

fj-AIUg 14 ARPY ENGINEER WATEMMAYS EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBI*6--ETC F/6 13 2LAKE PCOiTCMA: TRAIN AND VICINITY "

4RICAME PROTECTION PLAN. REPO-E/ ETC

-AM 82 " L BUTLER. Rt C EROCE. L L CAOAtTTUI lASSFD WS/TR/It6-2--2N

lesser magnitude flows. The best results were obtained for a uniform

Manning's n of 0.025 in the canal and 0.050 in the marsh overflow

areas surrounding the canal. The roughness of the submerged barriers

representing the structure was 0.120 and 0.140 for the flood and ebb

flows, respectively.

79. Results for these conditions are compared with physical model

measurements in Figures 59-62 for the maximum flood and ebb flows. Water-

surface elevation and velocity data for these flow conditions are pre-

sented in Tables 29 and 32. Circulation patterns for the maximum flood

and ebb flows are represented in Figures 63-66 with closeup views of the

structure area.

80. Results of these computations demonstrate that the numerical

model can reproduce the overall head loss through the canal and control

structure and that velocities are reasonably well reproduced on the

average. However, the physical model demonstrated significant drops

in water-surface elevations near the structure with a recovery of the

water-surface elevations away from the structure. This appears to be

due to an acceleration of the water. The flow of water also seems to

be concentrated on one side of the channel in the physical model, whereas

the flow in the numerical model is more uniform. It is anticipated that

modeling this with the nonlinear advective terms would again improve

details of the flow in the vicinity of the structure; however, since

the linear model satisfies the study objective, no additional tests

were run.

93

'I--r -- -

- - - TV - -- -

IDII -0 -

0W

-JU

00 L L.\zL

00I

z coQ- Q -4c

0in

A#8GOV3H

0>

-J-

co 4. U

-Ju

0 W 44

z .R L .44-

AVeG73JH

S J

00CI 1

LL4

4-

44

14 S

u .-4

0 -.4 U

Q)

0

-0

-4

ooc

0 wn

wu 0

>OL

> CLLL W4.4

44 -4

00

"E

tc n

uJo

00

-H0

I.x

* iBaIAIIaa*

0-4

* .aAI~jj~j~jssa...........*000-4

*......................

* . *&&LLLJIUI...............x

'JUUILSIJ............

....................................................................''AULLIULI............. . .1-hU

* . "&&L&IIU&I............ 5-* ar~Jjjjjjjjj .

........ 'IULIIISLII . .* *'~~

* 5-

_______________ o.J44

* ~1 G).4

* *~5~j~~5.......................'-4

*ILSLIILAIII..................... 03

'i&&ttaaiiai.......................................................... 'LL&LZIAIMI................ S..

014.4

* 'LLtLIAtAiAI............. 5-*LIUJJIIUJ.................... w

.1-4*IUtIUUhI....................urn

S*. i~jjauuas.............. . U

5-

* * lSIII~LUa8i...............

* . ViuUi~8ia...............

4,. . a.*a*&''a*s 10)

ja5haahhI1~S. 1.4

001 .4.4

.....................................................................................................

98

4.

I.

C

p q

4-

* . I. L . co

4-4

1 0

I ODto

.1 0

* lpt?,ttItI..

:30

t'vlTtflTlflft..

*0,0

* ~ttrrrTT1trt,...

09.flt.fl..* * I,,I..EIs,5

1 *14

~1TTfT1T1rf* *

0

.'tlTtTTttttT UtTfltf!flhI'.

tTfltUhlT?'.............* ... '777717 7771'..............

* *tfltt?!flr' * * . . . :3* 0

* . . 4'

* .el77 1'..............* * . * :1?TfTtllIt'...........

* . IIITtTtlti............

TfllTtlIftl'

1t11ttIttt

tI1tttitItt'.tt??titITI' 0.

fttlttttt *

* *~~,n~rrrv:rt .~4'CU

0

*t ?tTt1,f:f, . . . .

'ft

S'1 -~

100

'I

IT TTTTTTTTTTt

ITTTTTTTTTTT T

T T 7T T T T 'I" TTT 'T T .

TTTTTTTTTITT T T T TTr .

T TTT T TT T:3

t T TT TT T TT T T T

0

TTT TTT TTTTT

'TTTTTTTTNTT

, ?TTITTTrTlTTTT

( -nn nln -- - .. .

PART V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

81. Undistorted-scale physical models of the Seabrook Canal and

Chef Menteur Pass were constructed and tested for the purpose of obtain-

ing data to quantify the hydraulic characteristics of the various pro-

posed structures in the hurricane barrier protection plan. Experimental

data acquired from these models consisted of water-surface elevations for

a range of flow rates and surface current patterns near the structures.

Results from a previous model investigation of The Rigolets control

structure were sufficient to define the characteristics of that

structure.

82. Computational grid sectional models were developed, calibrated

to define structure representation in each sectional model, and subse-

quently tested for various conditions simulated in the corresponding

physical model. Fine scale numerical models were also constructed and

tested as part of a grid sensitivity check and to supply a model for

future detailed entrance pass studies.

83. For the computational grid models, single values of Manning's

n were determined for each structure and found to adequately describe

its characteristics for both flood and ebb conditions and for the entire

range of flow rates tested. Results are summarized as

Structure Manning's n

Rigolets 0.110

Chef Menteur 0.112

Seabrook Canal (bridge constriction) 0.190

Seabrook Canal (Plan 3) 0.400

Seabrook Canal (Plan 4) 0.230

Since the computational grid models are actually subgrids or windows of

the global grid, the Manning's parameters can be used directly in the

full lake simulations. Values obtained for the fine scale models differ

from those determined for the computational grid models. This is ex-

pected since many unresolved geometric features of the passes in the

computational grid are accurately described in the fine scale models.

102

i l -I l - - ,

The navigation channels in both Rigolets and Chef Menteur plans were

omitted in the sectional modeling and analysis indicates an under-

estimation error of about 2% could occur in simulating the tidal prism

of Lake Pontchartrain with the protection plan in place.

84. Test conditions for unsteady flow with each computational grid

model will be discussed in a subsequent report in the Lake Pontchartrain

series.

I0

REFERENCES

Berger, R. G., and Boland, R. A. 1976 (Sep). "Hydraulic Charateris-tics of Rigolets Pass, Louisiana, Hurricane Surge Control Structures;Hydraulic Model Investigation," Technical Report H-76-16, U. S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.

Butler, H. L. 1980. "Evolution of a Numerical Model for SimulatingLong-Period Wave Behavior in Ocean-Estuarine Systems," Estuarine andWetland Processes with Emphasis on Modeling Marine Science Series,Vol. 11, Plenum Press, New York.

Butler, H. L. (In preparation). "Lake Pontchartrain and VicinityHurricane Protection Plan: Numerical Model Investigation of PlanImpact on the Tida± Prism of Lake Pontchartrain," Technical ReportH-82-2, Report 3, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,CE, Vicksburg, Miss.

Chow, Ven Te. 1959. "Open-Channel Hydraulics," McGraw-Hill BookCompany, New York.

Keulegan, G. H. 1967 (Jul). "Tidal Flow in Entrances: Water-LevelFluctuations of Basins in Communication with Seas," Technical BulletinNo. 14, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Committee on Tidal Hydraulics,Vicksburg, Miss.

Outlaw, D. G. 1982 (Jan). "Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity HurricaneProtection Plan; Prototype Data Acquisition and Analysis," TechnicalReport HL-82-2, Report 1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.

104

L, ,\j0%\O , C~j Ur\ O0U %LvCO\0C O \ C\O\ O\ O\ O\ C\ CO tO HHlJ L\L

(k mcqN mcl NC~ NCl M Cj0000 000

0) cmcC~r LfoU,

CD C\J 0 1 l r

0 0 00 0 4' OOO 000

&0 0~

00

Ir U'0 (y) U.\ mY UN CU\ L\0 Ur\ t-IH C\ O\~~0 o\ a\c\ a\ a 'd ICC'CJ uC

c) C; 4 H;0C - -

tk 4' 0

C) Cl- C)C C C ( o q 0C

0 I 0000 0 oO 00 o~ I I I I I I I I I ICO C)

00

0l 4)

o- 0 0LL\\o0 0 0 -t0L\C ~ -Cy'0 00C\ C\ao0\ C000\0 0 00(\ a)

S3 a)

03 0 Cl)r

to +0-*-t-. ) 0\Cl\ 4'\ CUC Y \ \0 \MONa 7

oC ~aao C;\\0O0 W. 0 0 *v - -

0U

0W~4-)

'dC\J C- H

0ca1 11 1 1111 * 4'4 C)001-

H0 0q

0 9

40)

0)I 0)I 00 - 0 0 0 - -0)

CC)~0 011 1 11 11 -4a)4 -I1

0

-)

'v

m co U, ULr ,\oLt\ Hico02 0 L% 00C9 209 020900 O 9 02O00O'. C

10000000 0 0 -4H -- 4 0 N O.0..C

~~~~~~c I 111 IIII V00(JHC

I' II01 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,I II O\ C N H (V '

10 +' I 0 0 J CQ rHOri

0 I- HHH HH HH OO ,H 01......................

0 z4) +V

Vc CH. oioc)ooooo U\c nc)O - l 1 U9 9 C! 9 C C! 0 ~ 0 0 CLfl02( O 42024 0 C.*C1-I cm (. 0

ul 9 m 0 00 00 0 U 02020t02 0-.) Y L- 41

-4-4

U)~~(Y 0~ 020 H 0220C 002')'~ \10

0 AE-0 0 u 0

0l 0 -1 0'0 *

0 Hd

C4 -!C C C C ir c 4 : : C -t1 L- ~

UV 0

r- 0 m L0\D6N(y) \D c)cm2 r N 0'C00 \z a..4............... . ....C\V* 0 co 0 Y c o 0co00 Y\00 )cu r4 HHN'J'J 0

4 00L

~) 1 1 1I I I I 1C)C) 1

0 m Lr\ Lf\ (nLf, 0 t- 0 00 LrS c-r (

(l A C.JCA C C C4C J ~ ~ (~

0) 0 0 0 mH- C\J.

0 00 C000 C\ m t-- t\-j.--

HHHHHHH -Ir- 000000

C\J 0C'J 0 C.~C\0 O~0

~~P~~~C)C 011 1 01 1 (Y 0+ r0C. OHH0 0Q

o ,

Lf's (Y m0 0C\ 0 0 co00(Y cmH- I00 00 00m0 m 0\tL- -- \0 \

C) 011 3 II IY I. ~ Cj -o1 H W

Ul ci

P] 0 0 CQ crC(y)r Lr -rLr\ Lr\Lr\ m \j La ;,4

0 00 000 00 0a O\ 0Hr4 H ) (NO OOOQ C~j Cj rul

cc2 4-) a

0 ~)C\J 0.r 0 (0 I I I I ~O I II I I I I O\ H1 D4 L ~ C\

Id :J1 1. 1 11 1

,Dd 0 ca)EA 0 1 I 0 ) 00 ~00 0 0: 0L\ n()c

0- 00 -~\ 0\ 0t-- \0 \000xO ONC 0 r.) . . . . . . . . ... . 41)

ad) 1 1% r4( J \9OC)t- ,

cc . 4 . *

-o - 4- 4- CM. H(MHH J0 0 CJ M) 0 0 r CJ

0

0, 11 1 cc0\ 0 C.c ' Lr \Df0 1 ; I I 1 1 1+

00H1 0 L,0 0 0L\c 00

rc - ot--- r- - \0 \0 m C% \01 H 4

0 o. O*t 3k

o0 O\ .0 o 0c 0. )Y ,Pi m. CM1 N 1 (Y)1 MA 0n( Y \ 44p

H 0 0 z j4, r) H rI r 4 48r

to U0

rn1,

1t('\ t0 0 0 mr. 11Nc

a' 0

r- I - - irI0 %D0C L\U 0

0O )

Hc q4 mco -z N() m" \0 L-CY0 (n C)u\t~ mt*

o 0 WI to to

0

0

0 ~ OL. dqC..H r4 4-I0H0 0 _:t V 000A NNm

v 4> V HI I I I I I

0 4)

E-4 lX0 I l * Np 0 0- N

H) 9

to0 -H

CQ00 0 43HH 0 10 0 _:r r- V O-

V 0)

(y) Ir000'000 a'(0) 0 H4HH z 000L\ClCj(

O OUL'~ ~Lt'\O~aa' 00.4 NN 0

S.. dO..IcoHH HH HHyHH Qoc oL

651 0 Y 000 c \c i

00

r-I ~j M -r l\ k r- cc \ 0 1-4 ~j CV 14cv C) 4

HNU~14 COOH UO +3f~ Hi~

C'A0

m (n ~0 0 M 0 \\ C) 00 f\ en t

a111- 1 1 111 1': 111 I Il 000- Oc' JC

r=. . 4) \ 000-- CJ('11;4'

~CCr 4) l(0 gil -0 __ C\j V)r- e Hr- rI 1111 r4 0 0 0

\,0 4.) 000-: C'JC'1\o"\J\ :' \ C ,

0

u - 0 C\ Lf\ U \ N (y Lf\ LP m '0 -

0 r-I -I r-Ir-I rI r-I q 0 rI 0 0 0 -41-4 0 \ ci4) H

4) 0

PL41 ClH 0~Llf(L~r 0 .O00 OH 4t)~ -t c

4- 44

o 4 -4)

'43

~ 4) 0o a (' n ~0 t n-Lt1L -L a .N0 o - H r14

H A $4 Cfl o ' zt0,o0 0

4) 4- C

Cc :5 cj C\j C\j CM C\J C\ C\JOJm 0 0 0 I.4 S.4) 0 0 \ cmcr w

~q-4I I H

o0

c'jm(\c~Jc'c'jc'

> 0

1-4

0 0HH C C0 C

40 0

$4'

Table 6

Seabrook Model. Plan I

Discharge 5 V00 cfs

Water-SurfaceElevation, ft NGVD

Station* Flood Ebb

I -5.60 3.352 -5.65 3.333 -5.59 3.334 -5.58 3.385 -5.68 3.33

6 -5.63 3.387 -5.23 3.338 3.17 -7.729 3.25 -9.00

10 3.20 -7.58

11 3.20 -7.6312 3.18 -7.7013 3.22 -7.60

Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic,

the remainder are manual.

- -.

Table 7

Seabrook Model, Plan 2 Discharge = j000 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVDFlood Ebb

Station* Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5

1 1.28 -0.08 -1.28 -2.35 -0.88 -0.05 1.03 2.00 2.932 1.30 -0.03 -1.23 -2.38 -0.90 -0.08 0.98 1.93 2.903 1.23 -0.07 -1.26 -2.36 -0.95 -0.13 0.95 2.02 2.904 1.30 0.00 -1.25 -2.33 -0.85 0.00 1.05 2.00 2.955 1.33 -0.05 -1.25 -2.40 -0.95 -0.03 1.00 1.95 2.90

6 1.28 -0.06 -1.27 -2.39 -0.89 -0.05 1.00 2.00 2.937 1.33 0.00 -1.20 -2.38 -0.93 -0.08 1.00 1.98 2.908 1.98 0.91 -0.12 -1.04 -2.20 -1.20 0.05 1.16 2.109 1.98 0.93 -0.20 -1.10 -2.45 -1.48 -0.20 0.88 2.00

10 2.05 1.00 -0.13 -1.05 -2.18 -1.15 0.10 1.15 2.08

11 2.05 0.95 -0.15 -1.00 -2.20 -1.20 0.03 1.15 2.0812 2.00 0.98 -0.13 -1.03 -2.25 -1.25 0.15 1.28 2.0013 2.03 0.96 -0.07 -0.98 -2.26 -1.26 -0.01 1.17 2.09

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 2) Ebb (Run 3)

Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.8 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.6A2 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.7 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.7A3 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.7AB 1.5 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.6

B1 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.8 1.1 0.8B2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.8B3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.4

G

5 Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic, the remainder are manual.

I''

Table 8

Seabrook Model, Plan 2 Discharge = 6250 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVDFlood Ebb

Station* Run i Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run I Run 2 Run 3 Run4 RunS

1 o.68 -0.58 -1.73 -3.10 3.00 2.00 1.05 0.03 -0.952 0.73 -0.53 -1.70 -3.10 3.00 2.05 1.10 0.08 -0.90

3 0.63 -0.61 -1.76 -3.16 2.99 1.98 1.03 0.03 -0.974 0.68 -0.55 -1.68 -3.10 3.03 2.03 1.08 0.05 -0.935 0.63 -0.60 -1.78 -3.13 3.03 2.05 1.08 0.08 -0.93

6 o.68 -0.58 -1.72 -3.14 3.05 2.04 1.09 0.07 -0.947 0.65 -0.58 -1.73 -3.13 3.00 2.08 1.10 0.08 -0.908 1.90 0.87 -0.03 -1.01 1.97 0.82 -0.36 -1.68 -3.21

9 1.88 0.85 -0.08 -1.05 1.98 0.73 -0.43 -1.75 -3.2310 2.00 0.98 0.08 -0.88 1.98 0.73 -0.40 -1.73 -3.23

11 2.00 0.98 0.08 -0.93 1.93 0.78 -0.35 -1.73 -3.2312 2.03 1.00 0.08 -0.85 2.00 0.80 -0.33 -1.73 -3.23

13 1.95 0.92 0.01 -0.95 1.89 0.72 -0.45 -1.77 -3.30

Velocity . fps

Flood Run 2 Ebb (Run 3)Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 4.1 4.1 3.3 3.8 0.9 1.1 0.2 0.7A2 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.6 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.9A3 0.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.8AB 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.9

Bi 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.4 1.3 1.1 0.9B2 1.2 1.2 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.4 0.9 1.3B3 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

-,r

* Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic, the remainder are manual. i

Table 9

Seabrook Model. Plan 2 Discharge = 7500 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVD

Flood Ebb

Station* Run l Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run i Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run5

1 0.05 -1.60 -3.88 -6.68 2.98 2.00 1.08 0.03 -0.45

2 0.10 -1.55 -3.83 -6.68 3.03 2.05 1.10 0.13 -0.45

3 -0.03 -1.59 -3.87 -6.63 2.92 1.94 1.03 0.01 -0.464 0.08 -1.55 -3.85 -6.63 3.00 2.00 1.10 0.10 -0.43

5 0.08 -1.58 -3.83 -6.63 3.03 2.05 1.10 0.10 -0.40

6 -0.04 -1.62 -3.92 -6.75 3.02 2.03 1.09 0.07 -0.45

7 0.03 -1.6o -3.90 -6.58 3.03 2.08 1.13 0.15 -0.40

8 1.98 0.90 -0.16 -0.25 1.51 0.31 -0.87 -2.39 -7.35

9 1.98 0.80 -0.28 -0.35 1.38 0.20 -1.00 -2.60 -8.33

10 2.10 1.00 -0.08 -0.13 1.48 0.23 -0.98 -2.48 -7.48

11 2.13 1.00 -0.05 -0.13 1.48 0.20 -0.98 -2.48 -7.4512 2.15 0.98 -0.10 -0.20 1.45 0.25 -0.98 -2.48 -7.48

13 2.03 1.02 -0.04 -0.13 1.47 0.21 -0.97 -2.47 -7.47

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 2) ;bb (Run 2)

Earface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 5.0 4.9 4.0 4.6 1.0 1.3 0.4 0.9

;,2 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.2 1.1 1.3 0.6 1.0

A3 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.9

AB 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.6 1.7 2.3

B1 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.8

B2 1.6 1.4 1.n 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.5B3 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.6

I

. * Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic, the remainder are manual.

... .. - ". "..;. "}. .aOm m

. .. A

Table 10

Seabrook Model. Plan 2 Discharge = 8,750 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVD

Flood Ebb

Station* Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4

1 -1.03 -3.43 -7.63 2.90 2.03 0.95 0.482 -1.00 -3.38 -7.63 2.93 2.13 1.00 0.533 -1.05 -3.39 -7.60 2.89 2.06 0.93 0.434 -1.03 -3.40 -7.63 2.90 2.08 1.00 0.535 -1.00 -3.38 -7.63 2.93 2.13 1.00 0.53

6 -1.06 -3.41 -7.65 2.93 2.09 0.95 0.457 -1.05 -3.38 -- 2.98 2.13 1.00 0.558 1.82 0.99 0.98 0.69 -0.49 -2.23 -7.449 1.73 0.88 0.88 0.53 -0.70 -3.03 -9.33

10 1.98 1.13 1.10 0.60 -0.60 -2.40 -7.60

11 1.98 1.10 1.05 o.63 -0.63 -2.38 -7.6o12 1.88 1.08 1.00 0.60 -0.60 -2.40 -7.6013 1.92 1.10 1.11 0.58 -0.61 -2.36 -7-55

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 2) Ebb (Run 3)

Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 4.7 6.2 5.6 5.5 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.8A2 5.0 6.0 5.2 5.4 1.5 0.7 0.3 0.8A3 1.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.5 0.6 1.1AB 2.8 2.6 2.0 2.5 3.6 3.2 2.5 3.1

Bl 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.1 1.2B2 1.8 1.5 0.9 1.4 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.8B3 1.1 1.2 0.6 1.0 1.5 0.8 0. 4 0.9

I

*Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic, the remainder are manual.

.. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ......... .

. . .I

Table 11

Seabrook Model, Plan 2 Discharge =10,000 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVDEbb

Stat ion* Flood Run 1 Run 2

1 -4.98 3.08 2.252 -4.98 3.03 2.203 -5.00 3.05 2.16

4-933.10 2.285 -5.00 3.03 2.23

6 -5.20 3.07 2.207 -4.88 3.05 2.238 2.08 0.00 -6.219 2.13 -o.4~8 -8.00

10 2.23 -0.05 -6.3011 2.23 -0.03 -6.2212 2.23 -0.18 -6.4213 2.23 -0.06 -6.34

'Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic, the remain-der are manual.

Table 12

Seabrook Model, Plan 3 Discharge = 54000 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVDFlood Ebb

Station* Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run5

1 -1.48 -0.45 0.48 1.65 3.08 1.93 1.08 0.08 -0.952 -1.48 -0.45 0.50 1.68 3.05 1.88 1.03 0.00 -1.003 -1.48 -0.42 0.48 1.60 3.04 1.83 1.02 0.00 -1.044 -1.43 -0.38 0.50 1.68 3.08 1.95 1.08 0.10 -0.935 -1.38 -0.43 0.45 1.70 3.03 1.90 1.03 0.05 -0.98

6 -1.47 -0.40 0.50 1.64 3.07 1.91 1.o6 0.06 -0.987 -1.38 -0.40 o.6o 1.73 3.05 1.90 1.00 0.05 -1.008 -1.02 0.03 0.88 1.92 2.71 1.50 0.64 -0.43 -1.529 -1.08 0.08 0.90 1.90 2.68 1.25 0.40 -0.70 -1.8010 -0.98 0.05 0.98 2.00 2.70 1.55 0.65 -0.38 -1.50

11 -0.90 0.08 0.95 2.00 2.68 1.50 0.60 -0.40 -1.5312 -0.98 0.03 0.93 1.98 2.60 1.45 0.60 -0.48 -1.6013 -0.95 0.09 0.94 1.99 2.67 1.44 0.57 -0.49 -1.59

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 3) Ebb (Run 3)

Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.6A2 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.7 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.6A3 0.8 1.7 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.6AB 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4

BI 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.7B2 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8B3 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.5

* Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic, the remainder are manual.

. 9" ! " a anI

Table 13

Seabrook Model, Plan 3 Discharge 7500 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVD

Flood Ebb

Station* Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 run 5

1 -2.28 -1.03 0.03 1.18 2.98 1.83 1.00 -0.08 -1.05

2 -2.20 -1.00 0.08 1.20 3.00 1.93 1.05 -0.05 -0.98

3 -2.19 -1.04 0.07 1.15 2.97 1.82 0.94 -0.12 -1.04

4 -2.23 -1.03 0.08 1.15 3.00 1.90 1.03 -0.05 -1.00

5 -2.20 -1.03 0.08 1.18 3.00 1.93 1.03 0.00 -0.98

6 -2.26 -1.09 0.03 1.10 3.02 1.91 1.03 -0.06 -0.99

7 -2.23 -1.05 0.00 1.10 3.03 1.95 1.03 0.00 -0.93

8 -1.07 -0.07 0.91 1.89 2.40 1.22 0.24 -0.98 -2.04

9 -1.28 -0.20 0.78 1.78 2.30 1.10 0.13 -1.13 -2.23

10 -1.00 0.00 1.00 1.93 2.25 1.13 0.15 -1.05 -2.08

11 -1.00 0.00 1.00 1.95 2.30 1.13 0.18 -1.00 -2.08

12 -1.00 -0.05 0.95 1.90 2.33 1.18 0.20 -1.03 -2.10

13 -0.98 0.00 0.98 1.96 2.29 1.10 0.14 -1.07 -2.14

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 3) Ebb (Run 3)

Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.9 1.1 1.3 0.2 0.9A2 4.6 5.1 3.6 4.4 1.2 1.3 0.6 1.0

A3 2.6 3.5 2.3 2.8 1.1 1.3 0.6 1.0

AB 2.4 2.4 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.1

B1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.4 0.9 1.0 0.8

B2 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.9 1.6 1.0 1.5B3 1.1 1.1 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.9

4-* Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic, the remainder are manual.

1~ ___

v-rum

-- T CO f~J \ C-A.U0 0 0 t-

1- HA-; HHOOO 0050

H" LC\ 0~I I I CO I IU\I I \

o 0 0;

m 000 O\ o\o\ 0\O \ 00 N \otr-- l loP C7 HHHo C\O\O C\\ \ 4t- - H

+o0 )0 0 0( Y 000c

0

4 OU )L%-0 000 OOCO '%O O\OCC \ V>) ON~ 0\ 0\a ' Na n) y -

00000 c;(l OO CA HC'J A , +r

11+1 r1 1 II C

(Y 000 0 0 00-t C' (y u- u- '

H- r- r040C -t f\ C ) O '0 0 o 0 -

0 ~0

0 . . . .0 0C\.

ad HHHH _: HHOOO\IDU\ P 0 00 0

u\ 4I 1 10

m L\0 0 HO 0- - L

I 0Ib

1.44.0 r-4 C'J -t -\J 0D OCO co \ CO1 (Y) U\ri ~

LC,.*U~~9A '.pfO\O 00044) ~ .0

coo 00 0 O OzH

Table 15

Seabrook Model, Plan 3 Discharge = 12,500 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVDFlood Ebb

Station* Run i Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run i Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run5

1 -0.13 -1.68 -3.50 -7.38 2.95 1.90 1.03 0.05 -0.202 -0.08 -1.68 -3.48 -7.38 3.00 1.90 1.08 0.10 -0.133 -0.10 -1.67 -3.50 -7.37 2.86 1.82 0.98 0.07 -0.204 -0.10 -1.68 -3.45 -7.38 2.95 1.90 1.03 0.10 -0.135 -0.10 -1.70 -3.48 -7.33 2.93 1.90 1.08 0.10 -0.15

6 -0.26 -1.87 -3.75 -7.60 2.96 1.91 1.05 0.08 -0.197 -0.18 -1.70 -3.48 -- 2.93 1.88 1.00 0.10 -0.138 1.77 0.74 -0.17 -0.28 1.21 -0.21 -1.50 -3.27 -8.989 1.60 0.50 -0.43 -0.53 1.08 -0.55 -1.95 -4.55 -10.5510 1.93 0.90 -0.08 -0.10 1.13 -0.33 -1.68 -3.50 -9.40

11 1.98 0.90 0.00 -0.08 1.10 -0.35 -1.63 -3.48 -9.3212 1.95 0.90 0.00 -0.10 1.08 -0.45 -1.78 -3.48 -9.5013 1.96 0.94 0.05 -0.06 1.03 -0.40 -1.68 -3.48 -9.46

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 2) Ebb (Run 3)

Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.4 2.0 1.9 0.3 1.4A2 6.1 7.4 5.0 6.2 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.9A3 3.9 5.4 3.9 4.4 2.0 2.0 0.8 1.6AB 3.7 3.5 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.3 3.5

B1 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.6B2 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.9 2.9 2.3 1.9 2.4B3 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.6

* Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic, the remainder are manual.

Table 16

Seabrook Model, Plan 3 Discharge = 15,000 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVDFlood Ebb

Station* Run 1 Run 2 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

1 -1.85 -3.58 3.05 2.03 1.252 -1.88 -3.60 3.03 2.00 1.233 -1.91 -3.48 2.94 1.96 1.184 -1.80 -3.48 3.08 2.05 1.285 -1.85 -3.55 3.00 2.03 1.23

6 -2.26 -3.92 3.02 2.02 1.217 -1.85 -3.53 3.00 2.00 1.238 1.68 1.43 0.55 -1.06 -5.739 1.38 1.10 0.23 -1.53 -7.78

10 1.90 1.63 0.38 -1.18 -5.98

11 1.93 1.65 0.43 -1.18 -6.0312 1.90 1.65 0.38 -1.28 -6.0813 1.95 1.70 0.34 -1.27 -6.04

• Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic, the remainder are manual.

-- . . .|!

LN 0 00000 (Ll N m~ co 0Y M_:I W

2) OOOH 000

000430 000H000

0.0~. 000-HH 00000

ci 0 -

0 1 1 c t I I 1co 00 1 1 1. I

C)a

04.

Carc~ 000 co C\O 000 ()(

*H( *,L4ia

00 \00 H-0 -- .0 0co (n clJ0o0\0\0a\o- 0 M000000t--t- 00.) . . . . . . . 3

:3 (N (\ImC\j C~ j CJ j NCUC\j C\j ..-404

-4 04

r. 4. r4r-4 ~ 0orcc m0 c ~ oO cxn ot- q 0

4--1 -

43

11 1 1 ~430 *

r.

0\10.00

0O 0--~-t- OO.-

0 N

HH HHoHH H H H 0 0r4 0 Cl)

43 *:H9C(CNC LA\0t- i~HCJ -q C' H C'0 0 4)

430

I-.q

43 rICIM-tL\\Ot 0 \0 rICJCIm rICj(

Lr\ 0 M -t 0C\J u\ -I(n 0 M m Lr

, O o 0 o LO\ ~0OD a C)ru~ 0 occ

0 - - -irHrI000000 H HI

N~ 0 C\, C\0C\ C\C r- c H~0C,)L-"

+) OOOCUj OHH

Ea CC-4OC t-'0

fl.4 1 0 1 1 I I I L\ 1

0 'dI I- r-4U 0C'H rI 0 0 C)

a2) z

( 4 C\j \ ~ 0 H- ComL(\ m C)m 0 LrN0 C-Q. C* Hf

C C .Co CUC\C C rI

to 0 m U

Cd .rj

00

O\ 0 cyl \0 o r a\ co -0 cY2 co2q0 C\iC jC\C\CY C\ C\ JC\JmC\JC-- C\ 0000C\ 4

cc e-4 U C\ :HA 040 00 -

I4 U H

0- 0 000 0OO C)0 0 -

o) Cjmo j 4

0~( O' \0 bO

0'HO C4 8A

0 0 m5.. 00 0 0 rO4O 0

0 co a\0 (Y fn(n4 U-\(\m mLr CM P..00 ~ ~ rH OO t. GO(2H. HHH

0000000 0 00 00 0

4 U-\ m 0U% co co t.- 0 co a co ooO mH1 4..0.O C 1 11 0 G 91 C I

cm(n0 4I'-1- - 1 ll-41- - 1 1 11-4 0 01

HHHHH H HHO OO HaIt

PL4

0'

4-1 V- \ : f , l C \0 rICj(

ce~~~~ 4- 4- - - c~jpq 4

:1 0000000 C\J C\j C\j C\j 'C\j$- LIII~~1 I- (nI 11111 J) H m C\j 1-

_z 000000-T 0 HHHC)HHH0CC 0 0

04.7 a''\O f LU\C, o4-)

q 000 O 0 C0O 000 HC Cj ~ (). ..

0,

0 0 I 1 1 1 _ I 1 ~ l 1 6xt- - rfM-- N

0r C) 1 1 1 1 1 1*jHH C 1 H J

0 H ::0

o ma o o~ 0 cc 0oC\j U\ N m (Y) (1) Lr\ 0

bC C-4H HH-H-iH 1- 00 000 0 C ±\ Vf\02- r- HH(Y) 0 N C\j

u 0 t

d0 O\ C\ 0Q0\ O\ 0 C\ O \ CO 0-) -1 (C ' )J C \ j 0 Y ) \C .J r C \ j H H H C o 0 Y-') -

oL 0

> UU r441Cd 0O-;O C0 1- 41)H: c) (y) co l) \lUNLr yl ' 0 .- t r\ OO u.P. 0 *rIf O C

20 00 - \.D ft-- Dr- c ''D 0ON \a\ 0\ (n) -19'1 Y) 1 HCmJH 0d H U) OP.

4- P. 10000 0 H H H

0o L-' 5-.O oc ( - 0

0 00 0 00 00 a 8 C; C;r88'. 6u0 0

z PQ 4-'

Q) P4 ~o 0 0) 1 1 . 1 1 1 1

0 rH 0 0 rd uH- I I 1 0

H rX4 ~ l0 r C\ 0 00\

M 4) 0

o()m 0 ()0 0 0012 C\I) !

.4

U-\ o ~0 V\ OD0oJCf 0'P'Nm()o0t-OI 1 ~O\ l C\ C\O Oi HHt~P. C5* * * **d(J\

_:r o ( m0 cc)0 O\ L\ M m 0 -

0~ ~ ~ c'ci0~ 0C) 00Jr Cj M n

HOOHHO ~~iC'e~ 0

uhu

C4

CDIIo\ I P ou-4 C9 ovo

0 j

e 0 §0 OIP IY m -q (,Iq- m \O mr)00'J\

k) 434 C'

rn - . 4 -C..14 4.) U) Y 0r ()c ~ 0 -t Y y o C

CLC)

o 00 4-2 (D 1N.. L) a) CU

CC) C d\ ~ ' . H CH0 Lr ~ LL\ rn0 t- 0u Lc c 00L\M0

cc ao CO\ a\0\ o\C\ --t cO\ a\ co ) .. Lr\- CJN NC\J

a.~ I Lt\ U U\UNL HHO4 OOO 8 C.4 rm Ih t hi ld i

o to

C) 000 co co0 0M t -C)00C

I ~ ~ ~ - I IIH IIH0\ 0- z \f4--1 f H 4- UH I i 0

CC~) I I I Io Hrd Hk H \J.O u

U) q m)r(~,O 0.C00

PCl 0~j 00 HHH HH OOH HH't

$4 r' L r\ ,o'Jc \ N C) c100n00 e 00 '.O \0 0 0

M N000 0 CMJ.JCJ' (Y)H ('.JC)'J\C'J r:

U) c 0 )00 CqUI ) ~ ~

O.

0

H -4-4 m o

43 0too

Table 21.

Seabrook Model. Plan 4 Discharge = 25,000 cfs

Water-Surface Elevations, ft NGVDFlood Ebb

Station* Run 1 Run 2 Run_3 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run4

1 -1.35 -3.45 -7.13 2.98 2.05 1.08 0.452 -1.35 -3.38 -7.00 3.00 2.05 1.08 0.503 -1.30 -3.35 -7.15 2.86 1.97 1.00 0.404 -1.30 -3.38 -7.13 2.98 2.03 1.08 0.505 -1.33 -3.43 -7.20 2.98 2.05 1.08 0.48

6 -1.27 -3.35 -7.44 2.96 2.04 1.05 0.447 -1.30 -3.43 -- 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.438 1.35 0.49 0.17 0.65 -0.65 -2.52 -5.499 1.08 0.13 -0.18 0.35 -1.05 -3.13 -7.23

10 1.83 1.00 0.63 0.15 -1.18 -3.15 -6.10

11 1.90 1.08 0.73 0.18 -1.15 -3.08 -b.0512 1.88 1.05 0.73 0.08 -1.33 -3.20 -6.4813 1.92 1.10 0.84 0.18 -1.20 -3.15 -6.27

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 2) Ebb (Run 3)

Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 5.3 6.2 6.1 5.9 2.2 2.2 0.9 1.8A2 6.0 8.7 6.9 7.2 2.0 2.1 0.9 1.7A3 2.3 3.7 3.2 3.1 1.9 2.0 0.7 1.5AB 6.0 6.1 4.9 5.7 5.3 5.7 5.2 5.4

BI 2.9 2.5 2.0 2.5 3.1 1.4 2.3 2.3B2 3.3 2.9 2.3 2.8 4.1 4.2 2.9 3.7B3 2.9 2.7 2.1 2.6 3.6 2.7 3.0 3.1

Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic; the remainder are manual.

.. .. I '

_. . . ... Lzb." .,'41

Table 22

Seabrook Model, Plan 4 Discharge 30,000 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVDEbb

Station* Flood Run 1 Run 2

1 -7.93 3.10 2.102 -8.03 3.08 2.133 -8.04 3.00 2.024 -7.88 3.13 2.105 -8.00 3.03 2.13

6 -8.06 3.08 2.06-- 3.05 2.13

8 1.84 -0,55 -6.009 i.40 -2.00 -9.23

10 2.40 -1.20 -6.98

11 2.58 -1.18 -6.9512 2.55 -1.28 -7.2813 2.68 -1.30 -7.7

Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic; the remain-der are manual.

4I

__ _____hiV1

!

'2able 23

Seabrook Model, Plan 5 Discharge = 5000 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVDFlood Ebb

Station* Run 1 Run 2 Run 1 Run 2

1 -0.28 2.13 1.00 3.002 -0.28 2.15 0.93 3.003 -0.36 2.09 0.91 2.804 -0.28 2.13 1.00 2.955 -0.33 2.03 0.98 2.93

6 -0.27 2.12 1.01 2.957 -0.28 2.10 1.00 2.938 1.02 3.03 -0.38 1.789 1.03 3.00 -0.35 1.83

10 1.05 3.00 --0.28 1.83

11 1.08 3.05 -0.28 1.9312 1.15 3.10 -0.35 1.9013 1.03 3.04 -0.34 1.78

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 1) Ebb (Run 1)

Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Ll 5.0 5.3 3.7 4.7 4.6 3.7 4.3 4.2L2 5.7 5.7 3.9 5.1 6.9 6.1 4.1 5.7L3 6.2 5.9 4.1 5.4 5.2 5.0 6.7 5.6L4 4.7 5.0 4.0 4.6 5.4 5.4 4.3 5.0L5 4.7 7.1 6.5 6.1 5.5 5.7 4.9 5.4

AB 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.5 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.2

B1 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4B2 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.0B3 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.6

Ruin (2) Run (2)

L1 4.7 4.7 6.5 5.3 4.9 4.2 3.7 4.3L2 4.2 5.1 3.3 4.2 6.2 5.6 3.8 5.2L3 5.1 4.4 3.3 4.3 5.1 3.9 2.8 3.9L4 4.8 3.9 3.6 4.1 5.0 4.9 3.7 4.5L5 5.3 6.0 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.3 3.9 5.0

AB 1.5 1.5 0.9 1.3 2.9 3.2 2.8 3.0

B1 o.4 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.7B2 0.5 0.9 0.5 o.6 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.1B3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.5

Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electronic; the remainder are manual.

7-

Table 24

Seabrook Model, Plan 5

Discharge = 10,000 cfs

Water-SurfaceElevation, ft NGVD

Stat ion* Flood Ebb

1 -4.35 2.932 -4.28 2.983 -4.35 2.804 -4.28 2.95

5 -4.43 2.88

6 -4.32 2.927 -4.33 2.888 2.93 -2.809 2.98 -2.6510 3.03 -2.38

11 3.10 -2.3012 3.13 -2.3313 3.02 -2.43

Velocity, fpsFlood Ebb

Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Li 7.2 11.0 7.8 8.7 8.6 9.9 7.7 8.7L2 6.2 11.1 8.3 8.5 7.4 11.5 9.6 9.5L3 6.8 10.8 8.6 8.7 8.0 9.4 7.6 8.3L4 6.5 9.2 6.3 7.3 7.4 10.4 8.5 8.8L5 9.8 14.1 12.8 12.2 7.1 11.1 8.2 8.8

AB 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.7 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3

Bl 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.9 0.8 1.1 1.3B2 1.8 1.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.9B3 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.6 0.7 1.3

* Gages 3, 6, 8, and 13 are electroni.; the remainder are manual.

CO\ O' O \ O\\ O C \ CO\ 0 0 00 00 9 955 0 o0 0 0 rH H- H- H- H- H- H- H-

4-4

0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0

44 . .o .o\o u-U , N mUo 550 0 0\ \0 \ C \ 0 0\ 000\m 00 0\

o4 0 O\ ~ o ~ O\ O\ O 0~\ ~ \ ~

HO1 H HO H- - 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 ('1

z

01

LA) nJ Lr ('1 L\ t 0 0 L\ 0 NX 0' 0 m 0 N H(U O 0 0 0 0 0 O\ 0 0 0~ 0 0 0'0 0 0'. 1-

0

('1 ('u LA m LA, C-- () \ 0 0 1 0 O 0 (10 LA 4.-0. r)o\ 000a 0\ H\ a \ 0 0 0 0 0 H co

1*4

o ~ ~~~~~ 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

N X X X X C-- LAj 1 H 0 H 0 C'1 (1 (' C

w o 0\ a'\0 0'. a\ 'C 0 0 0 00 0 00 0

0) C'J H4 H H H H N C\J ('. N N LAU

0.4-4

CISr_ NN-1 C'1- LAo -t--- ?o o 0 0\. 434'Cal

5-A

Table 26

Water-Surface Elevations, Chef Menteur Structure Discharge = 50,000 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVDFlood Ebb

Station* Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4

1W 2.08 0.83 -0.03 -1.00 2.00 1.03 0.03 -0.95

1E 2.00 0.80 -0.10 -1.10 1.95 1.00 0.00 -1.03

2W 2.03 0.83 -0.08 -1.05 2.03 1.03 0.03 -0.98

2 2.00 0.78 -o.11 -1.09 2.04 1.01 -0.02 -0.94

2E 2.03 0.83 -0.10 -1.05 2.03 1.03 0.03 -0.98

3 1.97 0.76 -0.14 -1.12 2.02 1.00 -0.03 -0.95

4 2.00 0.78 -0.10 -1.10 2.00 1.00 -0.03 -0.98

5 2.13 0.90 0.00 -0.98 1.93 0.83 -0.18 -1.10

6 2.08 0.88 -0.01 -0.99 1.89 0.86 -0.19 -1.12

7W 2.15 0.93 0.00 -0.98 1.93 0.90 -0.18 -1.03

7 2.11 0.90 0.01 -0.97 1.94 0.92 -0.13 -1.06

7E 2.15 0.93 0.03 -0.95 1.93 0.93 -0.10 -1.00

8W 2.20 1.00 0.10 -0.93 1.98 0.98 -0.10 --

8 2.18 0.95 0.03 -0.95 1.93 0.90 -0.15 -1.05

8E 2.20 0.93 0.08 -0.95 2.03 0.98 -0.13 --

9E 2.35 1.20 0.33 -0.63 2.03 1.03 -0.10 -1.00

* Gages 2, 3, 6, and 7 are electronic; the remainder are manual.

- t': C\ OH o - U\ C1 1 C JCo 0b-C 0~ 0 \o 0 0 1 01 H\ C'J H4 I- C'J -- 1-

M III- I I I m (n co I Ir In I- Io 0 L\

o> c; oo o1 o1 0 0 o o \ 0 CC 0 Co C C1

14 ~ 0 ) m 0 0 0 -~ 1 C ~ C'J H~ m (Y\ y)c) 00\,a C~ 55 55 0 0 0 0 t 0L-00 00 (0 0 r

0 LI 1 0 I I

to 0101 1o 1~ 0 H 0 1o -0 1 1~ 1 u 1

0 A UA Af HI HM H H 0 0n 0 0 0r 0 0n 0 0o

-1 H 01 0 - t; C

N IQ 0~ iM CM Co I- I O i i CI rI I- rI r4 I 1 4

0

t.- ~ ~ 0 0 0:: O\ t- - co -I Co\ 00 t\ (Y) ()

r4 C r4 04 r4 4 ('; H4 H H H H H; H H H H

'.1-0

41 0nu.\0 m0 \, LC\ 0- Co ) It' H coH L(\ (y) It' 0

04 ' ~ H H H H 04 C'1 C\ 0 C ; OC Lf'o Co 0)

0 1 ' 0 0 1~ LC\ c; oCo8 c ;8 4 44 r

O H H H H ' '4 0 0 H O H 0 4 C .

Im 0

3 ~~~~~~ 1~' 00 0f o '0 L\ L\ '0 0 -0 00 1 u0 OC O 1 o 1- 1 '.0\ I. 0'. 0'. 00' 0 1 H 1 0

o 0 0 0 O H H4 C

00

00C

H H 44 r4 HZ c Zc cZ c Z c

H444

00

+U 0

Cal

______________________ W.",~ ~

Table 28

Water-Surface Elevation, Chef Menteur Structure Discharge = 100,000 cfs

Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVD

Flood Ebb

Station* Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Runi Run 2 Run 3 Run 4

1W 1.78 0.80 -0.28 -1.28 2.20 1.20 0.23 -0.80

1E 1.93 1.80 -0.20 -1.20 2.05 1.08 0.13 -0.98

2W 1.75 0.65 -0.30 -1.25 1.95 0.98 0.03 -1.08

2 1.73 0.63 -0.39 -1.32 2.04 1.07 0.08 -1.O1

2E 1.75 0.68 -0.35 -1.28 2.03 1.08 0.10 -0.98

3 1.59 0.49 -0.52 -1.52 1.96 0.98 -0.02 -1.12

4 1.63 0.53 -0.48 -1.45 1.93 0.98 0.00 -1.08

5 2.00 0.93 -0.08 -1.05 1.43 o.4o -0.60 -1.78

6 2.08 1.00 0.00 -0.97 1.49 0.47 -0.58 -1.71

7W 2.08 1.00 0.05 -0.90 1.55 0.53 -0.48 -1.58

7 2.09 1.00 0.00 -0.96 1.61 0.63 -0.39 -1.53

7E 2.10 1.05 0.10 -0.88 1.68 0.65 -0.33 -1.48

8W 2.35 1.33 0.40 -0.50 1.55 0.48 -0.65 --

8 2.20 1.13 0.08 -0.90 1.63 0.63 -0.40 -1.33

8E 2.23 1.18 0.20 -0.78 1.60 0.55 -0.50 --

9E 2.75 1.85 1.08 0.30 0.33 0.28 -0.98 -2.28

Gages 2, 3, 6, and 7 are electronic; the remainder are manual.

'0 CO ON co CCO 0 0 0 0 t-- t-- LA\ 1 ~ 0

00) 0D() 00 H Ho 01\ U, HY H H\ HoL. (n

Q040 0 00) 0 H 0 0N 0O'0 L 0 '.0 CO A

V) 00 000 0 H 0 00 HN 00i H~ n -T_: : n

0

o1 0 0 _ --z --I H- O\ t- -: -i 0 0o (0(0cy-I i H 000 0 O\ -- t -T ~- - -:3 ((0

ca N40 N 0404 C') C') H H H H H

En

-HH t- (0) LA 0

(0 I I I 0 I N I I I I (0 I I

14~ 1 4 4H

0044 ~ C CO 0 O Hor- 0 N4 0 (n _:I 0 () UN 0 (0) 0 0

HO' CO 00 C O 0 - - H (0(0( 04I HO (04'A ri (

04 Hr Hn 0 C) Hl H H H H H

t -j LAO 0 \0 ON IC C L 00 LA0 C OO 0

0') -: -: L'.'. ON\ CO H0 0 ON1 0 CO 04 COj _:t N

040

0 (o LA I - ( C L A LA OH 0 U LA \ M (n01 (0 C LA LA CO CO H 00 H (0 -

u 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 00rI 0 H *-- I ~ 4

0 4 LA- COj H LAj ( LA\ LA - ( 00C LA) LA 0

1-i '.0'. LA4 r-I H H- CO1 ONI 0~ O~ ~j N L N z0 ~

~3 00o 14-

o I'. -I 04040 H AC. L H H C O t

H, HY H H HD Hy Hy HC m04 L 04040 0 0 m

) 4- 4- 0 4 4 r 0 04c

Ld (04 LA'. (0 ON CO (V0 _:I, L 0 0- CO- 0 0 (\

0301z

Table 30

Velocities, Chef Menteur Structure Discharge = 25,000 cffs

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 2) Ebb (Run 2)

Station Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.8A2 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4A3 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.6

B1 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.8B2 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3B3 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.6

N5 1.1 1.2 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.7N4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.7N3 1.4 1.3 0.9 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.7N2 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.7N1 1.2 1.6 0.5 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0

C 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 0.9 1.8 0.9 1.2

S1 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 0.4 1.1S2 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.6 1.0S3 1.5 1.1 0.4 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.3s4 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.2S5 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.2

Dl 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.9D2 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.6D3 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5

El 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.7E2 0.9 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.6E3 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.6

Table 31

Velocities, Chef Menteur Structure Discharge = 75,000

Velocity, fpsFlood (Run 2) Ebb (Run 2)

Station Surface Mid Bottom Average Surface Mid Bottom Average

Al 1.0 1.7 1.6 1.4 3.4 2.8 2.1 2.8A2 3.6 3.3 2.1 3.0 2.2 2.2 1.8 2.1A3 2.9 3.0 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.3 1.9 2.2

BI 2.4 2.4 1.8 2.2 3.2 2.9 2.2 2.8

B2 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.5 2.9 2.8 2.1 2.6B3 3.3 2.9 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.4 1.9 2.4

N5 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.0 2.6 2.1 2.6N4 4.6 4.2 2.3 3.5 2.8 2.5 1.9 2.4N3 4.0 4.4 3.4 3.9 3.2 2.8 2.2 2.7N2 3.1 4.5 2.8 3.5 2.9 3.0 2.1 2.7Ni 5.0 5.0 3.1 4.4 3.9 3.4 2.8 3.3

C 6.3 6.1 5.7 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.3 5.4

SI 1.4 3.7 3.1 2.7 5.2 4.8 5.2 5.1S2 2.2 3.3 2.4 2.6 4.3 4.0 3.2 3.8S3 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.8 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.7s4 3.4 1.4 2.5 2.4 3.7 3.9 3.3 3.6S5 3.7 3.0 2.4 3.0 3.8 4.1 3.4 3.8

D1 2.9 2.6 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.5 2.5 3.0D2 3.0 2.9 2.3 2.7 3.8 3.2 2.5 3.2D3 3.0 2.6 1.9 2.5 3.1 2.9 1.9 2.6

El 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.4 4.2 2.0 2.9E2 3.5 3.7 2.6 3.3 3.4 2.8 2.0 2.7E3 2.6 2.5 1.9 2.3 2.9 2.6 1.5 2.3

: .. ' _ " - . ... . . .. . ... . . - " _ _ • I I ... 1- . ..w

r lz........................ill 11 1 1 1 11 1

4) LCV4C\ _ 4:TC N _ N _Z m_: :*\ t'- \.D\-OLI'110 LCI _r ()~0 \I -T .. tC\j

U) HO(44tOC H\H\0 ~O

0o 4.) y - Y (y)~ N'1 l CY) ~ y)MC 0 V -*UN U-1 .4 Lr\ CQ (Y)C-fn)C\J

Lf)CV.-4

4 I

Lrl _:r LC. IJ. -7t _:- -. ) (Y : : :tTL\ - t- \ra 0 z 0 Lr ---I L \CM

Lt%._:4C\j UNI rCY'_1 _z _ 4Lt\ \"0 \0 LA\Lr\ L\ _zr\10 C .-T L\CN

$40

14-4

(n 44P-41 C * 11 11 1 111 *1 I It C 1 ?1

E-4 0

>

$4 a4 H I 1; liC 1 - \ -04 4) f\( L M (V 4 '.\__T LUNLr Ljr\ co U\ : -: _:I 4l(\' m ( _: C'.! 0

00

00

0- 00$4 H L C'a.?. L l U ? 1 1; 1 9 1 1; L U 9 4

4.' H

04-' 04 p qm zz0 oc oC)c

p 0

Table 33

Rigolets Model, Summary of Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVD,

for Base Conditions

Flood ConditionsTide Max* Med** MintGage P C F P C F P C F

T-1 1.95 2.02 2.06 1.20 1.19 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00

T-2 1.95 1.93 1.95 1.25 1.15 1.25 1.00 0.99 0.98

T-3 1.90 1.85 1.86 1.20 1.1 1.20 1.00 0.98 0.97

T-h 1.70 1.72 1.81 1.10 1.06 1.18 0.95 0.97 0.97

T-5 1.70 1.67 1.72 1.10 1.03 1.14 0.95 0.96 0.95

T-6 1.75 1.63 1.65 1.10 1.00 1.10 0.95 0.95 0.94

T-7 1.70 1.63 1.63 1.10 1.00 1.09 0.95 0.95 0.94

T-8 1.60 1.57 1.57 1.05 0.98 1.06 0.95 0.94 0.93

T-9 1.55 1.51 1.52 1.00 0.95 1.03 0.90 0.94 0.92

T-10 1.50 1.51 1.45 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.94 0.91

T-13 1.70 1.74 1.73 1.10 i.09 1.14 0.90 0.97 0.95

(Continued)

Note: P = physical model; C = computational grid model; F finescale model.216,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.

w' 143,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.t 69,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.

... ._...._,_, ,I

Table 33 (Continued)

Velocity, fpsVelocity Max Med MinRage P F P F P F

2A 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.6

2B 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.0 0.9

2C 2.9 2.8 1.7 1.9 0.8 0.9

3A 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.0 0.9 o.4

3B 1.9 2.1 1.5 1.4 0.9 0.7

3C 3.0 2.7 1.9 1.8 1.1 0.9

hA 1.9 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.2

4B 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.0 0.7 0.5

4c 2.1 1.1 1.7 0.7 0.5 0.3

5A 1.9 2.5 1.5 1.6 0.9 0.8

5B 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.5 0.9 0.8

5C 1.7 2.0 1.2 1.4 0.7 0.7

6A 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.6

6B 1.9 2.5 1.4 1.8 0.6 0.9

6C 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.3 0.5 0.8

7A 2.5 2.7 1.9 1.9 0.7 1.0

7B 1.8 2.2 1.3 1.4 o.4 0.6

7C 1.7 2.3 1.3 1.5 0.5 0.7

8A 0.8 1.7 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.5

8B 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.6

8C 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.7

Note: P = phsical model; F = fine scale model.

Table 34

Rigolets Model, Summary of Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVD.

for Base Conditions

Ebb ConditionsTide Max* Med** MintGage P C F P C F P C F

T-1 1.15 1.12 1.18 0.70 0.71 0.64 0.95 1.00 1.00

T-2 1.30 1.28 1.31 0.70 0.76 0.70 1.00 1.02 1.02

T-3 1.50 1.40 1.41 0.75 0.81 0.75 1.00 1.03 1.04

T-4 1.50 1.39 1.47 0.75 0.81 0.77 1.00 1.03 1.04

T-5 1.55 1.45 L.57 0.80 0.84 0.82 1.00 l.O4 1.05

T-6 1.60 1.57 1.65 0.80 0.89 0.86 1.05 1.06 1.06

T-7 1.60 1.61 1.67 0.85 0.91 0.87 1.00 1.06 1.07

T-8 1.65 1.66 1.74 0.90 0.93 0.90 1.05 1.06 1.07

T-9 1.75 1.73 1.79 0.95 0.96 0.92 1.00 1.07 1.CJ

T-10 1.85 1.87 1.86 0.95 1.02 0.96 1.00 1.09 1.09

T-13 1.55 1.52 1.54 0.85 0.86 0.62 0.95 1.04 1.07

4

I:'0

(Continued)

Note: P = physical model; C = computational grid model; F finescale model.

* 223,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain., 143,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain.

t 75,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain.

Table 34 (Continued)

Velocity, fpsVelocity Max Med MinRange P F P F P F

2A 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.3 0.7 0.6

2B 2.2 2.4 1.4 1.7 0.6 1.0

2C 3.1 3.0 1.9 2.0 0.9 1.0

3A 1.5 1.6 0.9 1.0 0.3 0.5

3B 2.4 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.0 0.8

3C 2.6 2.9 1.7 1.9 1.0 0.9

4A 1.6 0.9 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.6

4B 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.5 1.1

4c 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8

5A 1.8 2.6 1.5 1.6 0.8 0.7

5B 2.3 2.2 1.4 1.5 0.8 0.8

5C 2.8 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.7

6A 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.5

6B 2.5 2.6 1.7 1.8 0.9 0.9

6c 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.8

7A 1.8 2.8 1.1 1.8 0.7 0.9

7B 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.6

7C 2.3 2.4 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.7

8A 1.9 1.8 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.5

8B 2.4 2.3 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.6

8C 1.2 2.0 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.6

N

Note: P = physical model; F = fine scale model.

_"___"_ .

Table 35

Rigolets Model, Summary of Water-Surface Elevation, ftNGVD.. for Plan 2A

Flood Ccnditions

Tide Max* Med** MintGage P C P C P C

T-1 1.95 1.96 2.00 1.99 1.95 1.95T-2 2.00 1.86 2.05 1.95 1.95 1.94T-3 1.85 1.76 1.95 1.91 1.90 1.93T-4 1.00 1.U- 1.60 1.62 1.85 1.86T-5 0.95 1.02 1.60 1.62 1.80 1.86

T-6 0.95 1.00 1.55 1.61 1.75 1.86T-7 0.90 0.99 1.55 1.61 1.75 1.86T-8 0.90 0.93 1.55 1.59 1.85 1.85T-9 0.80 0.87 1.45 1.56 1.75 1.85T-10 0.80 0.87 1.45 1.56 1.65 1.85T-13 1.80 1.68 1.95 1.88 1.85 1.92

Ebb ConditionsMaxtt Med* Min**PCP C PC

T-1 0.50 0.51 1.50 1.46 1.85 1.83T-2 0.80 u.68 1.55 1.52 1.90 1.85T-3 0.65 0.81 1.50 1.57 1.85 1.87T-4 2.00 1.74 2.05 1.93 2.10 1.96T-5 1.90 1.62 2.05 1.88 2.05 1.95

T-6 1.90 1.80 2.00 1.96 2.00 1.97T-7 1.90 1.84 2.00 1.97 2.05 1.98T-8 1.95 1.89 2.00 1.99 2.00 1.98

T-9 2.00 1.96 2.05 2.02 2.00 1.99T-13 1.15 0.96 1.70 1.62 1.95 1.88

Note: P = physical model; C = computational grid model.* 216,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.

* 143,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.t 69,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.

tt 223,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain.* 143,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrair.** 75,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain.

I - WE!I I EE

Table 36

Rigolets Model, Summary of Water-Surface Elevation, ft NGVD.

for Plans 2A and 2A-1

Flood ConditionsMax* Med** Mint

Gage F F Ftt F F F FTide P 2A 2A-1 2A-1 P 2A 2A-1 P 2A 2A-1

T-1 1.95 2.11 2.11 2.08 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00T-2 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.96 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.98T-3 1.85 1.90 1.90 1.83 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.80 0.97 0.97T-4 1.00 1.09 1.11 0.96 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.87 o.87T-5 0.95 1.09 1.09 0.97 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.87 0.87T-6 0.95 1.03 1.03 0.97 0.35 0.50 0.47 0.75 0.86 0.86T-7 0.90 1.01 1.02 0.92 0.35 0.45 0.46 0.75 0.86 0.86T-8 0.90 0.94 0.95 0.86 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.75 0.86 0.86T-9 0.80 0.88 0.89 0.84 0.35 o.4o o.4o 0.75 0.85 0.85T-10 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.75 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.60 0.83 0.83T-13 1.80 1.76 1.77 1.69 0.85 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.95 0.95

A2-10 1.20 1.20 1.19 1.21 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.35 0.15 0.15

Ebb Conditions

Maxt Med** Min§F F F F F F

P 2A 2A-1 P 2A 2A-1 P 2A 2A-1

T-1 0.50 o.63 0.63 0.35 o.48 0.48 0.85 0.93 0.93T-2 0.80 0.77 0.77 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.95 0.95 0.95T-3 0.65 0.90 0.99 0.50 0.60 u.60 0.90 0.97 0.97T-4 2.00 1.79 1.78 1.10 0.97 0.97 1.05 1.06 1.06T-5 1.90 1.79 1.79 1.10 0.98 0.98 1.05 1.06 1.06T-6 1.90 1.85 1.85 1.10 1.01 1.00 1.05 1.07 1.07T-7 1.90 1.88 1.87 1.05 1.02 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.09T-8 1.95 1.95 1.94 1.10 1.05 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.08T-9 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.10 1.07 1.07 1.05 1.08 1.08T-10 2.00 2.08 2.07 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.05 1.10 1.10T-13 1.15 1.05 1.04 0.70 0.68 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00

AH2.10 1.20 1.31 1.30 0.55 0.57 0.57 0.10 0.15 0.15

Note: P = physical model; F = fine scale model.* 216,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.

* 143,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.t 69,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.

tt Advective terms included in momentum equations.* 223,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain.** 143,000 efs from Lake Pontchartrain.

§ 75,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain.

Table 37

Rigolets Model, Summary of Average Velocity, fps,

for Flood Conditions

Flood Conditions

Max* Med** Mint

Velocity F F Ftt F F F F

Range P 2A 2A-1 2A-1 P 2A 2A-1 P 2A 2A-1

2A 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.6

2B 3.1 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.9

2C 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.1 0.9 0.9

3A 2.4 1.7 1.6 2.5 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.5

3B 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.0 0.9 0.9

3C 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.9

4A 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.2

4B 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5

4c 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.4 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.3

5A -- 3.4 2.9 6.6 -- 2.3 2.0 -- 1.1 0.9

5B -0.3 2.9 4.0 0.7 -0.3 2.0 2.8 -0.3 1.1 1.4

5C -0.4 1.1 1.2 -0.2 -0.3 0.8 0.7 -0.3 0.3 0.3

6A 4.5 2.0 2.0 2.8 3.1 1.3 1.3 1.7 o.6 0.6

6B 1.0 2.6 2.6 2.9 0.6 1.8 1.8 0.3 0.9 0.9

6C -0.2 1.8 1.9 -0.7 -0.1 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.7 0.7

7A 3.2 2.7 2.7 1.9 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.1 1.0 1.0

7B 2.5 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.77C 0.4 2.3 2.: 2.8 0.3 1.5 1.5 -0.2 0.7 0.7

8A 1.2 1.7 1.7 2.0 o.6 1.2 1.2 -0.4 0.5 0.5

8B 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.9 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.6 0.68C 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.7

Note: P = physical model; F = fine scale model.* 216,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.

** 143,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.

t 69,000 cfs into Lake Pontchartrain.

ft Advective terms included in momentum equations.

.. . , .i i I i I I I I i- i

Table 38

RiZolets Model, Summary of Average Velocities. fps, for Ebb Conditions

Max* Med** MintVelocity F F F F F FRange P 2A 2A-l P 2A 2A-1 P 2A 2A-1

2A 3.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.62B 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.9 0.92C 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.0

3A 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.53B 5.5 2.7 2.7 3.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.0 1.03C 0.9 2.8 2.8 0.6 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.9 0.9

4A 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.74B 0.6 1.4 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.2 0.6 1.1 1.14c 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8

5A -- 3.5 3.0 -- 2.2 1.9 -- 1.0 0.95B 2.5 3.0 4.1 1.8 2.0 2.7 0.8 1.1 1.45C 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3

6A 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.66B 2.0 2.7 2.7 1.3 1.8 1.8 0.7 0.9 0.96c 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.7

7A 2.1 2.8 2.8 1.4 1.8 1.8 0.6 0.9 0.97B 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.6 0.67C 2.4 2.3 2.3 1.2 1.5 1.5 o.6 0.7 0.7

8A 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.58B 2.0 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.68C 1.5 2.0 2.0 0.8 1.3 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.6

I

Note: P = physical model; F fine scale model.* 223,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain.• 143,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain.t 75,000 cfs from Lake Pontchartrain.

m 4 ".

U

(

1 SEABROOK PASS PHOTO 1

if - Ovrts~c~r,&. .3-.-" .-. .flAi~rt -~ -

t~.2~-

9.

C,)

LUJ

LLJ

LU.

PHOTO 2

VELOCITYSCALE

05 10 20

BASEFLOOD DISCHARGE =15,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =3 SEC

PHOTO 3

VELOCITYSCALE

o 5 0 20

BASEFLOOD DISCHARGE =30,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =3 SEC

PHOTO 4

Ifr~

VELOCITYSCALE

0 6 1 20I ...a I :1

BASEEBB DISCHARGE = 15,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =3 SEC

PHOTO 5

VELOCITYSCALE

o 5 10 20

BASEEBB DISCHARGE = 30,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME 3 SEC

PHOTO 6

VELOCITYSCALE

0 10 20

PLAN 2FLOOD DISCHARGE -5,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME 8 SEC

PHOTO 7

Not0als

__W

VELOCITY SCALE

0 10 2001 1 a a ppI

PLAN 2FLOOD DISCHARGE =5,000 CFS

* EXPOSURE TIME =9 SEC

* PHOTO 8

VELOCITYSCALE

0 6 10 20

PLAN 2EBB DISCHARGE - 5,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME - 3 SEC

PHOTO 9

VELOCITY SCALE

0 5 10 2

PLAN 2= EBB DISCHARGE =5,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =9 SEC

PHOTO 10

VELOCITYSCALE

0 S T 20

PLAN 3FLOOD DISCHARGE - 5,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =3 SECj PHOTO 11

VELOCITY SCALE

L0 5 1 0 20

PLAN 3FLOOD DISCHARGE 6 ,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =9 SEC

PHOTO 12

VELOCITYSCALE

0 5 10 20

PLAN 3FLOOD DISCHARGE - 10,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME = 3 SEC

PHOTO 13

I

VELOCITY SCALE

0 5 10 2

PLAN 3FLOOD DISCHARGE - 10,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =9 SEC

PHOTO 14

VELOCITYSCALE

0 5 10 20

PLAN 3EBB DISCHARGE =5,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =3 SEC

PHOTO 151

VELOCITY SCALE

0 0 20

PLAN 3EBB DISCHARGE = 5,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME - 9 SEC

PHOTO 16

I4b

VELOCITYSCALE

0 5 10 20

PLANEBB DISCHARGE =10,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =3 SEC

PHOTO 17

VELOCITY SCALE

L0 10 20

PLAN 3EBB DISCHARGE - 10,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =9 SEC

PHOTO 18- _

Ifi"

VELOCITYSCALE

0 5 10 20

PLAN 4FLOOD DISCHARGE = 5,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME = 3 SEC

PHOTO 19

VELOCITY SCALE

0 5 1 0 20

PLAN 4FLOOD DISCHARGE =5,000 CFSK

EXPOSURE TIME =9 SEC

DHOTO 20

VELOCITYSCALE

05 10 20

PLAN 4FLOOD DISCHARGE 10,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =3 SEC

PHOTO 21

VELOCITY SCALE

PLAN 4FLOOD DISCHARGE - 10,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME -9 SEC

M40TO 22

I)L

VELOCITYSCALE

0u p 10 20

PLAN 4FLOOD DISCHARGE =15,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =3 SEC

PHOTO 23

VELOCITY SCALE

010 20

PLAN 4FLOOD DISCHARGE = 15,000 CFS -

EXPOSURE TIME =9 SEC

PHOTO 24

VELOCITYSCALE

o ~ 0 20

EBB DISCHARGE -5,000 CFSEXPOSURE TIME =3 SEC

PHOTO 25

VELOCITY SCALE

0t 10 2

PLAN 4 -

PHOTO 26

VELOCITYSCALE

o 5 10 20L.*,.,

4 PLAN 4EBB DISCHARGE =10,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME -3 SEC

PHOTO 27

VELOCITY SCALE

0 10 20

PLAN 4EBB DISCHARGE =10,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME -9 SEC

PHOTO 28

VELOCITYSCALE

0 5 10 20

PLAN 4EBB DISCHARGE - 15,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME =3 SEC

PHOTO 29

VELOCITY SCALE

0 51021i 1 i k i Ii I I

PLAN 4EBB DISCHARGE = 15,000 CFS

EXPOSURE TIME -9 SEC

PHOTO 30

4

DISHARGE 75,000 CFS

DISCHARGE 125,000 CFS

VELOCITY SCALE

5 0 5 10 15 FPS

SURFACE CURRENT PATTERNS

FLOOD FLOW

PHOTO 21

DIHARG 50 I

DISCHARGE 15,000 CFS

DISCHARGE 125,000 CFS

VELOCITY SCALE

5 0 5 10 15 PS SURFACE CURRENT PATTERNS

EBB FLOW

PHOTO 32

i~

80.0

LEGE

6.0-

I4.0-

2.0-

600 400 200 0 200 400 600( DISTANCE, PROTOTYPE FT

NOTE: ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEETREFERRED TO NGVD. FLOOD FLOW 25,000 CFS

PLATE 1

10.0 I I I I

MIDOEPTHB OTTOM

6.0-

I l

2 .0--

.01

Soo 00 20 0200 Go

2.0 0

NOTE: ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEETREFERRED TO NGVD. FLOOD FLOW 75,000 CFS

PLATE 2

. . .....

M2. LI0EPTH

-BOTTOM

10.0-

, 0'

I%

4.0 -I

DITACE \PTTEF

6.00

4.0i

NOTE: ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEETREFERRED TO NGVD. FLOOD FL.OW 125,000 CFS

PLATE 3

6.0

6.04.0-

2.0-

600 400 200 0 200 400 600DISTANCE, PROTOTYPE FT

LAME POWrCHARMAN GL

NOT: EEVAION-AR IN FEE

REFERRED TO NGVD. EBB FLOW 25,000 CFS

PLATE 4

10.0

MIDDEPTH-BOTTOM

6.0

6,0-

4.0-

2.0-

0 IBoo 400 200 0 200 400 600

DISTANCE. PPOTOTYPE FT

LAKE* PONMCA9RMAd GULF

NOTE: ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEETREFERRED TO NGVO. EBB FLOW 75,000 CFS

PLATE 5

-BOTTOM

10.0-

6.0 I

de

4.0-

2.0 1 1600 400 200 0 200 400 600

DISTAN4CE, PFAOTOTYPE FT

L 4_40

NOTE: ELEVATION$ ARE IN FEETREFERRED TO NGVO. EBB FLOW 125.000 CFS

PLATE 6

In accordance with letter from DAEN-RDC, DAEN-ASI dated

22 July 1977, Subject: Facsimile Catalog Cards forLaboratory Technical Publications, a facsimile catalog

card in Library of Congress MARC format is reproducedbelow.

Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protectionplan : Report 2 : Physical and numerical modelinvestigation of control structures and the SeabrookLock : Hydraulic and Mathematical Model Investigation / byH. Lee Butler ... [et al.) (Hydraulics Laboratory,U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station). --

Vicksburg, Miss. : The Station ; Springfield, Va.available from NTIS, 1982.176 p. in various pagings, 6 p. of plates ; ill.

27 cm. -- (Technical report ; HL-82-2, Report 2)Cover title."June 1982.""Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, New

Orleans.Bibliography: p. 104.

1. Difference equations. 2. Hurricane protection,3. Hydraulic models. 4. Mathematical models.5. Pontchartrain, Lake (La.) I. Butler, H. Lee.II. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. New

Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane : ... 1982.(Card 2)

Orleans District. III. U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station. Hydraulics Laboratory. III. Series:Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station) ; HL-82-2, Report 2.TA7.W34 no.HL-82-2 Report 2

A

L i i

ATE

L M El